American Canyon City Council
November 18, 2025

General Plan
Appendix 4-1
EXHIBIT B ATTACHMENT 1
672

Acknowledgements
Project Team
Napa Valley Transportation Authority
Diana Meehan, Senior Program Planner/Administrator
Danielle Schmitz, Director-Programs, Projects & Planning Alberto Esqueda, Senior Program Planner/Administrator
Kate Miller, Executive Director
NVTA Active Transportation Advisory Committee
Frances Knapczyk, Chair
Joel King, Vice Chair
Barry Christian
Mike Costanzo
Cruz Correa
Marissa Coyne
Dieter Deiss
Trinity Talbott
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Patrick Band, Executive Director
Madeline Oliver, Program Coordinator
Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition
Philip Sales, Executive Director
Bay Trail
Maureen Gaffney, Principal Planner, SF Bay & Water Trail Programs ABAG/MTC Napa Open Space District
John Woodbury, General Manager
Consultant Team
Toole Design
Jessica Zdeb AICP
Megan Wooley-Ousdahl AICP
Brooke DuBose AICP
Jacob Nigro
Sara Schooley
Sara Rauwolf
Jonathan Yuan
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Jonathan Berlin MESM
673

Staff
City of American Canyon
Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
Cheryl Braulik, Engineer
Steve Hartwig, Public Works Director
Creighton Wright,
City of Napa
Eric Whan, Acting Public Works Director
Lorien Clark, Transportation Planner
Town of Yountville
Joe Tagliaboschi, Public Works Director
Nathan Steele, Senior Management Analyst
Debby Hight, Deputy Public Works Director
Preya Nixon, Management Analyst
City of St. Helena
Erica Ahmann-Smithies, Public Works Director
Tobias Barr, Public Works Project Manager
Aaron Heckock,
City of Calistoga
Mike Kirn, Public Works Director
County of Napa
Steve Lederer, Public Works Director
Juan Arias, Deputy Director Public Works/Engineering
Dana Ayers, Planner
674

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................2 Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................7 County Context .....................................................................................................................................7 How was this Plan developed? .............................................................................................................8 Plan Organization................................................................................................................................13 Chapter 2: Goals and Policies..................................................................................................................14 Countywide Vision and Goals .............................................................................................................14 Serving All Types of Bicyclists..............................................................................................................15 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) .................................................................................................................16 Relationship to Existing Plans and Policies.........................................................................................17 Chapter 3: Existing Bicycling Environment .............................................................................................19 Context for Bicycling ...........................................................................................................................19 Characteristics of Bike Trips................................................................................................................20 Collision Trends...................................................................................................................................24 Demographics.....................................................................................................................................31 Bicycle Facilities and Network.............................................................................................................33 Bicycle Programs.................................................................................................................................47 Key Opportunities...............................................................................................................................49 Chapter 4: Proposed Bicycle Network and Programs.............................................................................50 How the Network was Developed ......................................................................................................50 Proposed Bicycle Network ..................................................................................................................51 Proposed Support Programs and Policies...........................................................................................58 Performance Measures.......................................................................................................................59 Chapter 5: Implementation Strategy ......................................................................................................61 Implementation Methods...................................................................................................................61 Project Phasing....................................................................................................................................64 Cost Estimation ...................................................................................................................................66 Funding Opportunities........................................................................................................................67 675

Chapter 6: City of Calistoga Bicycle Plan.................................................................................................70 Section 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................70 Section 2: Goals and Policies...............................................................................................................72 Section 3: Existing Bicycle Network ....................................................................................................75 Section 4: Proposed Bicycle Network .................................................................................................83 Section 5: Support Programs and Policies ..........................................................................................85 Section 6: Implementation Plan..........................................................................................................87 Chapter 7: City of St. Helena Bicycle Plan...............................................................................................91 Section 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................91 Section 2: Goals and Policies...............................................................................................................93 Section 3: Existing Bicycle Network ....................................................................................................96 Section 4: Proposed Bicycle Network ...............................................................................................106 Section 5: Support Programs and Policies ........................................................................................108 Section 6: Implementation Plan........................................................................................................111 Chapter 8: Town of Yountville Bicycle Plan ..........................................................................................116 Section 1: Introduction .....................................................................................................................116 Section 2: Goals and Policies.............................................................................................................118 Section 3: Existing Bicycle Network ..................................................................................................121 Section 4: Proposed Bicycle Network ...............................................................................................129 Section 5: Support Programs and Policies ........................................................................................131 Section 6: Implementation Plan........................................................................................................133 Chapter 9: City of Napa Bicycle Plan .....................................................................................................136 Section 1: Introduction..................................................................................................................136 Section 2: Goals a nd Policies ......................................................................................................138 Section 3: Existing Bicycle Network.............................................................................................142 Section 4: Proposed Bicycle Network ...............................................................................................157 Section 5: Support Programs And Policies .................................................................................162 Section 6: Implementation Plan...................................................................................................165 676

Chapter 10: City of American Canyon Bicycle Plan...............................................................................171 Section 1: Introduction .....................................................................................................................171 Section 2: Goals and Policies.............................................................................................................173 Section 3: Existing Bicycle Network ..................................................................................................176 Section 4: Proposed Bicycle Network ...............................................................................................185 Section 5: Support Programs and Policies ........................................................................................187 Section 6: Implementation Plan........................................................................................................189 Chapter 11: Unincorporated Napa County Bicycle Plan .......................................................................193 Section 1: Introduction .....................................................................................................................193 Section 2: Goals and Policies.............................................................................................................195 Section 3: Existing Bicycle Network ..................................................................................................197 Section 4: Proposed Bicycle Network ...............................................................................................217 Section 5: Support Programs and Policies ........................................................................................223 Section 6: Implementation Plan........................................................................................................225 677

Chapter 1: Introduction
The Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) and the jurisdictions of Napa County are seeking to improve the bicycling environment for all residents and visitors by identifying key infrastructure, programs, and policies in this plan. The first countywide bicycle plan was adopted in 2003, and the most recent update was made in 2012. The 2019 Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan (referred to as the “Plan”) builds upon the bicycle recommendations presented in the 2012 Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan. The field of bicycle planning and design has changed significantly in the last seven years, and this Plan incorporates those current best practices. This Plan approaches the bicycling environment with an eye toward making bicycling possible for a large part of the population, not only those who already ride or are already comfortable riding in most traffic conditions.

New funding sources at the county, regional, and state scale have become available for projects and programs in the last few years. For example, local jurisdictions have a great opportunity for implementing bicycle facilities as part of road resurfacing and rehabilitation projects under Measure T, a local ½ cent sales tax measure for streets and roads rehabilitation, repair and maintenance. The Equivalent Funds (equal to 6.67% of annual Measure T revenue from other non-competitive sources) countywide collective match for shared-use paths (Class I bicycle facilities), provides the opportunity for implementing off-street trails, providing increased safety and connectivity. This Plan can help jurisdiction staff pursue funding and coordinate other planned projects with bicycle infrastructure to efficiently build out the bicycle network.

Bicycling is an important part of the Napa Valley landscape. Residents use bikes to get to destinations throughout the county, whether to work, or to school and shopping. The County’s beautiful rural roads attract recreational bicyclists for group rides and events. Residents and visitors also take advantage of the Vine Trail to enjoy a relaxed, off-street ride for recreation or transportation. When completed, the Vine Trail will form a fully connected north-south active transportation corridor through the Napa Valley, from Calistoga to the Vallejo Ferry Terminal in Solano County. Planning and construction of the Vine Trail brings together staff from jurisdictions throughout the county, private land owners, and dedicated advocates. Partnership is also key in the county’s Safe Routes to School program.

This foundation of cooperation will serve NVTA, jurisdiction staff, and community stakeholders well as they move forward together to implement the recommendations of this Plan. Improving the bicycling environment will help more people choose to bike on the streets and trails of Napa County, ultimately serving NVTA’s goals for countywide transportation: reducing growth in vehicle miles traveled, shifting travel from single occupancy vehicles to other modes, and reducing energy use and GHG emissions and congestion.

COUNTY CONTEXT
Napa County is located in the northern San Francisco Bay Area. As a world-famous wine-producing region, the County has several million visitors annually and is characterized by numerous wineries and vineyards, restaurants, and other tourist destinations. The primary land use is agricultural and outdoor activities such as hiking, mountain biking, and walking or biking along the Napa Valley Vine Trail are 678

popular with both residents and visitors. The region’s temperate climate makes these outdoor activities accessible nearly year-round.

Napa County includes six jurisdictions: The City of American Canyon located in the southern portion of the Valley; the City of Napa is the largest jurisdiction and is in central Napa Valley; The Town of Yountville, City of St. Helena, and City of Calistoga in northern Napa Valley. Napa County is predominantly rural, and the unincorporated areas outside of the jurisdictions are managed by the County. The County and local jurisdictions have installed a variety of bicycle facility types; however, the overall bicycle network is primarily comprised of bicycle lanes (Class II) and bicycle routes (Class III).

HOW WAS THIS PLAN DEVELOPED?
This update to the 2012 Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan began in May 2017 and is the culmination of a year and a half of community engagement paired with a data-driven analysis of existing conditions and needs. The engagement and analysis
informed the development of the 2019
goals, policies, network approach, and
bicycle facility recommendations.

The process to develop this Plan included
many stakeholders. The development of
the Plan was initiated and managed by the
Napa Valley Transportation Authority
(NVTA). Several additional entities
provided valuable input into the plan
development process including:
• Staff from the Cities of American
Canyon, Napa, St. Helena, and
Calistoga, the Town of Yountville,
and Napa County (referred to as
the “jurisdictions”) provided
strategic guidance on the existing conditions analysis and bicycle network approach and development.
• The Napa County Bicycle Coalition, the bicycle advocacy organization for Napa Valley and partner organization for the Napa County Safe Routes to School program, assisted in organizing bicycling field visits in each jurisdiction for the project team. The organization encouraged participation in online tools, participation in outreach events, and provided valuable input on the proposed bicycle network.
• The Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition (NVVTC) is a nonprofit organization focused on raising funds and awareness of a 47-mile active transportation corridor currently under development that will connect the Vallejo Ferry Terminal in Solano County to Calistoga in northern Napa County (see Figure 1.1). NVVTC offered important guidance on the Vine Trail.

Figure 1.1. Bicyclists on the Napa Valley Vine Trail in the City of Napa 679

• The NVTA Active Transportation Advisory Committee, NVTA’s primary committee advising the NVTA Board on active transportation matters was instrumental in providing feedback and review of the Plan throughout the planning process.
• The City of Napa Bicycle and Trails Advisory Commission, A group with extensive knowledge of the current bicycle network, programs and policies, provided important review and feedback for the Plan.

Public Input Summary
Throughout the process, NVTA sought ideas from the community on current bicycling conditions and needed improvements. Several common themes and priorities emerged from the community’s feedback, including a desire for:
• Well-maintained bikeways suitable for a wide range of riders • Connections to schools, parks, trails, and commercial areas • Recreational bikeways along rural routes
• Effective signal detection for bicycles
• Colored paint for bicycle lanes1
• Appropriate bicycle infrastructure on roadways, especially those with high speed and traffic volumes
The community’s input was essential to ensuring the Plan’s recommendations meet the needs of Napa Valley residents. Highlights of the outreach efforts are discussed in this section. Additional information can be found in the individual jurisdiction plans (see Chapters 6-11) and Appendix B: Community Outreach Summary.

Online Outreach
NVTA launched an online interactive map, called a “WikiMap,” to gather input about the existing bicycle network. The WikiMap was available from July to October 2017. Users were asked to identify routes they already ride, where they would like to ride, and any barriers to biking.

The map, shown in Figure 1.2, was created for the entire county, and respondents could zoom to comment on specific jurisdictions. The map was available as a link from the project webpage and participation was encouraged through public outreach events. Community members provided just over 200 map comments, entering valuable input about the state of bicycling in Napa County and specific areas to address in this Plan.

1 See Appendix A: Facility Design Toolkit for discussion of using colored paint to denote conflict areas. 680

Figure 1.2. Online WikiMap interface
In addition to the initial WikiMap, NVTA also hosted an online map for residents to review the recommended bicycle network facilities. This map showed draft recommended bike facilities throughout the county and allowed users to agree or disagree that the recommendation was appropriate in that location. Approximately 330 comments were received and reviewed by staff in each jurisdiction for possible changes to the recommended network.

Community Outreach Events
Several community outreach events were held to solicit input on existing and proposed facilities and share ideas. The first event was held at the Napa PorchFest on July 30, 2017, in the City of Napa.

Attendees shared feedback on the existing conditions maps and participated in a “What Type of Rider Are You” activity. This activity asked participants to self-identify as one of four types of riders: Interested but Concerned, Enthused and Confident, Strong and Fearless, or Not Interested or Able. This spurred community members to think about their own individual approaches to bicycling and enabled the project team to get a snapshot of the Napa Valley population and its composition with respect to bicycling. Different types of bicyclists, or bicyclists-to-be, require different types of infrastructure to choose bicycling for their trip.
681

The second event was held as a part of
BikeFest, an annual event sponsored by
the Napa County Bicycle Coalition, on
May 5, 2018, at the Oxbow Commons
in the City of Napa. During the event,
participants were invited to “Build their
Own Street” by choosing different
foam-board components, such as bike
lanes, sidewalks, medians, and
roadways (see Figure 1.3). This activity
helped participants consider the
tradeoffs of dedicating space to
different modes or uses and allowed
them to express their priorities.

Through a dot voting exercise, over 70
participants shared their priorities for
the bicycle network (see Figure 1.4).

The most important priority was high-quality, high-comfort bikeways; bikeways that connect to schools, parks, and trails and recreational bikeways along rural roads tied as the second most important.

Respondents also indicated that bikeways that connect to commercial areas were very important.

Other common themes and interests
included:
• Installing bicycle detection at
signals
• Installing green paint in conflict
areas
• Improving safety
• Installing separated bikeways on
high-speed, high-volume streets,
especially on or along major
thoroughfares, rural streets, and
neighborhood streets with
speeding issues
NVTA staff held an open house event on June 19, 2018 to seek feedback about draft bikeway network recommendations. Attendees reviewed the plan process to date, viewed a presentation of current best practices in bicycle facilities planning (see Figures 1.5 and 1.6), and provided comments on the proposed network.

Figure 1.4. Responses to “What’s Most Important to You?” Figure 1.3. A family participating in the “Build Your Own Street” activity at the BikeFest event in the city of Napa.
682

Figure 1.5 NVTA Bike Plan Open House Figure 1.6 NVTA Bike Plan Open House Committees
Throughout the process, three established NVTA committees provided guidance and feedback on the existing conditions, proposed bicycle network, and proposed support programs. These committees included:
• Active Transportation Advisory Committee (ATAC) - Focuses on bicycle and pedestrian issues throughout the county and includes 11 members who live or work within Napa County representing each jurisdiction within the County.
• Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) - Composed of 19 members; six members are appointed by the elected boards of Napa County's jurisdictions: the cities of American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa and St. Helena; the Town of Yountville; and Napa County. • Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - Includes representatives from the Napa County Public Works Department and staff from each Napa County jurisdiction. 683

PLAN ORGANIZATION
This Plan is organized into 11 chapters and nine appendices.

Chapter Focus
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Plan
Chapter 2 Plan goals and policies and relationship to existing plans Chapter 3 Existing bicycle environment in Napa County
Chapter 4 Countywide recommendations for bikeways and programs Chapter 5 Implementation and funding strategy
Chapter 6 City of Calistoga Bicycle Plan
Chapter 7 City of St. Helena Bicycle Plan
Chapter 8 Town of Yountville Bicycle Plan
Chapter 9 City of Napa Bicycle Plan
Chapter 10 City of American Canyon Bicycle Plan
Chapter 11 Unincorporated Napa County Bicycle Plan
Appendix Focus
Appendix A Bicycle Facilities Toolkit, a guide for implementing bicycle facilities and improvements Appendix B Summary of the public and stakeholder engagement that guided the Plan recommendations Appendix C Overview of relevant plans and policies related to bicycling in Napa County Appendix D Strategies for developing a bicycle count program Appendix E Full list of Proposed Bicycle Network projects Appendix F Summary of the Plan’s fulfilment of Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant requirements
Appendix G Facility Cost Estimate Details
Appendix H Level of Traffic Stress Methodology
Appendix I Glossary of Terms
Appendix J Resolution of Adoption of this Plan
684

Chapter 2: Goals and Policies

COUNTYWIDE VISION AND GOALS
The Countywide vision statement, goals, and policies were developed to guide the Plan recommendations and will be used to evaluate progress. These were collaboratively developed by NVTA staff, the NVTA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), NVTA Active Transportation Advisory Committee (ATAC), City of Napa Bicycle and Trails Advisory Commission and the Napa County Bicycle Coalition.

Vision Statement
Napa County’s vision is to be a bicycle-friendly community with a world-class bicycling system for all ages and abilities. The comprehensive, connected bicycle system will provide people with safe, convenient and enjoyable access to destinations throughout all Napa County jurisdictions and beyond.

Residents and visitors will enjoy bicycling for everyday commuting, non-work trips and recreation.

Bicycling contributes to a high quality of life, promotes health and will help achieve a 10 percent mode share in Napa County by 2035.

Goals and Policies
The goals and policies developed for the 2019 Plan will guide Napa County communities in improving the bicycling environment for residents and visitors.

Table 2.1. Goals and Policies of the Plan
Goals Policies
Connectivity Develop a welldesigned low
Level of Traffic
Stress (LTS)
connected bicycle
network
• Build and maintain a local and countywide bicycle transportation and recreation network that connects Napa County’s
incorporated cities/town and unincorporated communities and provides access to public transportation and community
destinations.
• Develop and maintain continuous low Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) bicycle facilities of all types to provide accessible intra-city connections that serve as the framework of the Countywide Bikeway System.
• Prioritize coordination and completion of regionally significant primary bikeways including the Napa Valley Vine Trail, the Bay Trail and the Ridge Trail, and local connections to those facilities. • Provide secure bicycle parking at public and private destinations throughout Napa County.
• Integrate the bicycle network and bicycle facility amenities into land use decisions and developments.

Equity Improve bicycle
access for
disadvantaged
and/or
underserved
communities
• Implement projects that improve access for disadvantaged and/or underserved communities, particularly those reliant on walking, biking and transit for transportation.
685

Goals Policies
Safety Improve safety
for all ages and
abilities
• Work to reduce the number and severity of bicycle collisions. • Work to reduce bicycle fatalities to zero by 2035.
• Improve locations that have high incidences of bicycle collisions, and/or impediments or conflicts to bicyclists.
• Implement Complete Streets policies that ensure accommodation and enable safe access for users of all ages and abilities. • Implement appropriate, well-designed bicycle facilities using accepted design standards, including intersection and other crossing improvements.

Education &
Encouragement
Increase mode
share of bicycling
• Encourage education programs for all users of the roadway in all jurisdictions and school districts.
• Develop programs and public outreach materials to promote safety and the positive benefits of bicycling.

SERVING ALL TYPES OF BICYCLISTS
Many factors contribute to people choosing to ride a bicycle, with a major factor being the rider’s perception of safety. A rider’s perception of an unsafe route can be related to numerous things but is most often related to riding adjacent to high-traffic and high-speed roadways or crossing busy intersections with little or no separation from vehicles. Research has found that a large percentage of the American population is interested in bicycling for transportation but does not currently do so because they believe the routes they would need to travel are unsafe or feel uncomfortable. Many people feel safer and more comfortable riding on low-traffic, low-speed streets or on facilities that provide protection or physical separation from fast-moving traffic.2 Most people in the U.S. – between 50 and 60 percent – have little tolerance for interacting with motor vehicle traffic unless volumes and speeds are very low (see Figure 2.1).3 This group of riders is referred to as “Interested but Concerned,” reflecting both their interest in bicycling for transportation as well as concerns about safety and comfort when interacting with motor vehicle traffic.

This framework of rider types was used to assess the existing bicycle network and to select recommended facility types for the 2019 Plan. This rider type has the highest potential for increasing bicycle mode share if facility types that support and encourage biking are available.

2 Source: Dill, J. McNeil, N. “Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey” Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting, 2016.
3 Studies, such as the one referenced above, show that approximately one third of the adult population is not currently interested in bicycling or able to bicycle.
686

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS (LTS)
Bicycle planners and designers use Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) as the measure of a street’s suitability for Interested but Concerned riders and potential riders. LTS measures how people feel when they are bicycling. The proximity, volume and speed of traffic can impact how people feel while riding which means specific types of bicycle facilities are more appropriate to specific types of roads than others. For instance, a standard bike lane may have a low level of traffic stress for most riders when it’s on a 30mph street with fewer than 6,000 vehicles per day. That same bike lane on a 40mph street with more traffic volume will not be comfortable for many riders. When someone considers riding a bike for their trip, they may not choose to do so if part of their trip is on a “high-stress” street.

High-stress intersections can also prevent people from choosing to ride a bike. These are locations where a small street crosses a large one without traffic control for the major street. These locations interrupt an otherwise low-stress, comfortable ride by causing a rider to need to wait for a gap in traffic, gauge the speed of passing vehicles, and cross a longer distance while traffic is still proceeding, or perhaps detour a longer distance from their desired destination. Signalized intersections can also be stressful when bike lanes stop in advance of the intersection, or when they are located inappropriately to the right of a right turn lane.

To learn more about the Level of Traffic Stress Methodology and how LTS impacts connectivity, see Appendix H. This appendix includes a memo outlining how LTS is conducted, what assumptions were made for analysis in Napa County, and results from the low-stress connectivity analysis.

Figure 2.1 Types of Bicyclists and Level of Stress Tolerance 687

RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING PLANS AND POLICIES
Napa County and its jurisdictions have a host of adopted plans and policies that affect the County’s and jurisdictions’ bicycle projects, investments, and priorities. This section briefly summarizes key plans and policies. A full review of plans and policies and their relationship to this Plan can be found in Appendix C:

Plans and Policies Review.

NVTA Countywide Transportation Plan (2014)
The Napa Countywide Transportation Plan – Vision 2040: Moving Napa Forward is a long-range transportation plan that sets goals, strategies, and investments for all modes of transportation for the next 25 years. The Plan identifies a constrained transportation project list for the county, which includes 17 projects that specifically aim to improve bicycling in the county. The Plan also identifies linkages between expanding the bicycle network and programs (e.g., Safe Routes to School, Complete Streets, bikeshare, separating pedestrians and bicyclists from the roadway) and the broader economic development, transportation demand management, environmental, health, and placemaking goals for the county.

SR 29 Gateway Corridor Implementation Plan (2014)
In 2014, NVTA created a vision and implementation plan for the southern section of State Route 29 (SR 29). This 17-mile segment of SR 29 is a “gateway” to Napa Valley as well as a regional corridor for passthrough traffic. The Plan includes options for increasing active transportation facilities within the SR 29 corridor. Currently, the corridor provides paved shoulders for bicycling in some sections. The Plan recommends bicycle facility improvements as shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2. Bicycle Recommendations in the 2014 SR 29 Gateway Corridor Implementation Plan SR 29 Gateway
Corridor Segment Proposed Improvement
SR 37 to American Canyon Road Shared-Use Path - Class Is, separated from automobile travel lanes by a landscape strip
Napa Junction Road to South
Kelly Road
Shared-Use Path - Class Is, separated from automobile travel lanes by a landscape strip
American Canyon Road to Napa
Junction Road
Two Options:

1. 1. Bike Lane - Class IIs along the local access lanes

2. 2. Modified boulevard concept that would continue the Class I paths South of SR 37 Cycling access to Downtown Vallejo and the ferry terminal along Sonoma Blvd (facilities are specified in the Sonoma Blvd Specific Plan) Between the Ferry Terminal and
the SR 29/SR 37 intersection
Class I facilities along SR 37 and Harbor Drive
North of South Kelly Road Improving to an 8’ shoulder (striped to Class II) in addition to improved access to the Vine Trail via Airport Blvd
Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan (2018)
The 2018 Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan is a strategic planning document that identifies and prioritizes bicycle investments on State-owned transportation infrastructure. It is part of the statewide Toward an 688

Active California effort (see below), which seeks to improve multimodal access, improve health outcomes, and reduce traffic congestion, among other goals. In Napa County, projects are identified at intersections with and along state-owned roadways including SR 29, SR 12, SR121, SR 128, and SR 221.

Toward an Active California: State Bicycle + Pedestrian Plan (2017) Toward an Active California: State Bicycle + Pedestrian Plan offers a visionary and comprehensive policy to support active modes of transportation throughout the state. The Plan’s vision states that “by 2040, people in California of all ages, abilities, and incomes can safely, conveniently, and comfortably walk and bicycle for their transportation needs.” The plan focused on four areas of policy and recommendations:
• Safety: Reduce the number, rate, and severity of bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions • Mobility: Increase walking and bicycling in California • Preservation: Maintain a high-quality active transportation system • Social Equity: Invest resources in communities that are most dependent on active transportation and transit
The Plan was released concurrently with major new funding from SB1 (Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017), which provides an additional $1 billion for investments over the next ten years. 689

Chapter 3: Existing Bicycling Environment
This chapter provides an overview of bicycling conditions throughout Napa County, as well as localized efforts to support bicycling through policies and programs. This Plan’s recommendations for the bicycle network and support programs are drawn from the information analyzed and presented in this chapter.

CONTEXT FOR BICYCLING
Napa County is predominantly rural, and the five cities and town of Napa County – American Canyon, Napa, Yountville, St. Helena, and Calistoga – hug the western area of the county and are located along State Routes 29 (SR 29) and 128 (SR 128) (See Figure 3.1 Jurisdictions of Napa County).

The City of Napa is the county seat and the largest
city, with a population of approximately 80,000. As
one of the older communities in the area, Napa has
a traditional, dense downtown retail core with a grid
of relatively narrow two-lane streets, and older
neighborhoods nearby downtown with similar
street patterns. It also has established suburban
areas somewhat farther from downtown, which are
characterized by low-density, residential land uses
served by larger arterial-style streets.

The City of American Canyon is the second largest
city in Napa County. The population is
approximately 20,000, and most of its growth has
occurred in the last 25 years, after the city’s
incorporation in 1992. It is composed primarily of
low-density single-family neighborhoods connected
with wide multi-lane arterials.

American Canyon serves as a commuter community
along SR 29, with some residents traveling to the
larger employment centers of the central Bay Area for work. SR 29 bisects the City of American Canyon and creates barriers to permeability between the west and east sides of the roadway, especially for people walking and biking. While American Canyon currently lacks a traditional downtown, new developments along SR 29 are creating retail and entertainment destinations for the community, some with integrated residential development. Most of this new development housing is on the east side of SR 29, and older neighborhoods and industrial development are on the west side of the corridor.

The majority of the local workforce live in the cities of Napa and American Canyon and commute to the “Upper Valley” communities of Yountville, St. Helena, and Calistoga. The 2014 Napa Valley Travel Figure 3.1. Jurisdictions of Napa County.
690

Behavior Study found that 55 percent of the study’s sample traveled within the county (both their origins and destinations were within Napa County).4
The Cities of Napa and American Canyon also have Napa County’s two Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are areas throughout the Bay Area region that were identified in Plan Bay Area5 as candidates for sustainable residential and jobs growth, infill development, and investment. The PDA in the City of Napa is located in downtown and along Soscol Avenue between Imola Avenue and First Street, and the PDA in the City of American Canyon is located along State Route 29 between Green Island Road and the Solano County line.
6 The Town of Yountville is home to 3,000 people (approximately 1,200 residents live at the Veterans Home of California in western Yountville), and is located five miles north of Napa off SR 29. It has a series of low-volume, low-speed streets connecting its residential areas to the commercial core along Washington Street.

The City of St. Helena is located 15 miles north of Napa in the heart of Napa Valley. It is a small city with a population of approximately 6,000. It is served by a network of low-volume local streets as well as SR 128/29, which is the main street through its downtown. St. Helena is predominantly residential, except for the areas immediately adjacent to SR 128/29, including a small industrial/office park at the southeast end of the city.

The City of Calistoga, at the north end of Napa Valley is a community of 5,000 people. Its small, traditional downtown is located on Lincoln Avenue (SR 29). Similar to St. Helena, the highway is the city’s main street. Narrow residential streets connect the city’s neighborhoods, though the Napa River creates a barrier between the north and south ends of town.

The unincorporated areas of Napa County are largely rural and agricultural with a few small communities, including Angwin and Pope Valley. Many narrow roads with low traffic volumes are located throughout the unincorporated areas. Due to the efforts of farmers and Napa County residents, much of the land in these rural areas is designated as agricultural preserve, and the Land Trust of Napa County is actively securing easements and using other tools to preserve the natural landscape.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BIKE TRIPS
Understanding the reasons that people bike in Napa County is fundamental to creating a network that existing users can continue to use and people new to bicycling can begin to experience. Existing bicycle network usage will inform the Plan recommendations.

4 Napa County Travel Behavior Study, 2014. Available online at:
http://www.nvta.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Napa%20County%20Travel%20Behavior%20Study.pdf 5 Plan Bay Area is the long-range regional plan for transportation and land use in the Bay Area’s nine counties. 6 For more information about Priority Development Areas and the locations in Napa County, and throughout the Bay Area, visit: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/PDAShowcase/ 691

Trip Purpose
Bicycle trips can be broken down into two main categories: transportation and recreation. The former are trips taken by people bound for a destination, the latter simply for enjoyment or exercise. Currently, better data is available about transportation trips than recreation, and this information is presented below.

Transportation Trips
Generally, a drive of less than 10 minutes equates to a bike ride of less than 30 minutes and is considered “bikeable.” Per the 2016 U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year Summary, all cities except for American Canyon have over 20 percent of workers with commutes less than 10 minutes (not including those who work from home). Viewed through that lens, the county’s commute trends show an impressive potential for bike commuting. Some residents within the cities and Napa County (approximately 0.8 percent) choose to bicycle to work, and data is readily available regarding residents’ commuting mode choice from the U.S. Census’ American Community Survey (ACS). However, workrelated trips only comprise 10 to 15 percent of all household trips; the remaining 85 to 90 percent of trips are made to visit friends and family or for errands, entertainment, outings, and recreation. 7 While data is not readily available, it is safe to assume that Napa County residents are more likely to bike for non-work trips because non-work destinations, such as a retail shop or a friend’s house, are likely to be located closer to home.

Only the cities of Calistoga and Napa have bicycle commute percentages over one percent, and the overwhelming majority of residents drive to work (see Table 3.1). However, current commuting patterns do indicate opportunities for mode shift.

Table 3.1. Commute Characteristics in Napa County8
Automobile
/Motorcycle
Public
Transportation
Bicycle Walk
Work from
Home
Commute
<10 minutes
American
Canyon

93.9% 1.5% 0.4% 0.7% 3.3% 9%
Calistoga 76.7% 0.0% 1.6% 14.6% 5.2% 31%
City of Napa 90.8% 1.8% 1.1% 2.1% 3.5% 20%
St. Helena 82.2% 1.3% 0.3% 7.2% 8.0% 34%
Yountville 88.3% 0.9% 0.7% 3.3% 6.8% 22%
Napa County
Total

87.7% 1.4% 0.8% 4.1% 5.1% 21%

7 Range references the National Household Travel Survey (15 percent) and California Household Travel Survey (9.9 percent).
8 2016 U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year summary. 692

Some bicycle trips in the county are also related to school travel. In 2012, a parent survey was conducted as a part of the Napa County Safe Routes to School program. Of the respondents, four percent of students bike to and from school. However, the majority of school trips were made via the family vehicle (68 percent). Data on modal splits related to school travel has not been collected since this 2012 survey but will be a part of the new Safe Routes to School program led by the Napa County Office of Education and the Napa County Bicycle Coalition.

Tourism and Recreation Trips
While bicycling for transportation is an important element to plan for in Napa County, recreational bicycling likely accounts for a larger portion of trips. Recreational trips are not captured in available data about mode split. However, people on bikes can readily be seen throughout Napa County, especially on weekends. These recreational riders include:
• Confident recreational road bicyclists who typically take longer rides along rural roads and are comfortable riding near higher-speed and/or higher-volume traffic, • Mountain bikers/gravel riders who ride on the unpaved trails in the county, and • Neighborhood and shared-use path riders, including individuals, groups, or families who ride for enjoyment and exercise but are not comfortable riding near higher-speed, higher-volume traffic.

Today, many of these recreational riders drive to the start of their rides. Some riders may be traveling from nearby counties, or if they are Napa County residents, their ride’s starting location may be further than a bikeable distance from home. Others may not be comfortable bicycling on the roads between home and the trailhead.

Tourism is a major industry for the county and must be accounted for in bicycle planning and implementation efforts. Napa County receives 3.5 million visitors annually; 80 percent of visitors are from the United States, and 20 percent are international. Just over a third of the visitors stayed overnight within Napa County on their trip; the rest visited Napa County as a day trip.

In 2016, Visit Napa Valley, the official tourism marketing organization, conducted a visitor survey to better understand the types of visitors that come to the area, where they visit within the county, and what they do during their visit.9Four percent of the respondents reported that they were planning to bike, or had already biked, on their trip. This equates to nearly 150,000 visitors annually biking within the county who may be unfamiliar with the area and its bike network, or with biking in general.

How Many People Bike Today?
Some work has been done in the past few years by multiple parties to understand how many people are bicycling in Napa County, but there is currently no comprehensive program for counting bicyclists in the county. The Vine Trail Coalition maintains continuous counters at three locations along the trail to

9 Visit Napa Valley (2017). 2016 Napa Valley Visitor Industry Economic Impact. Viewed at https://www.visitnapavalley.com/articles/post/visit-napa-valley-releases-the-2016-napa-valley-visitor-industryeconomic-impact-visitor-profile/ on April 2, 2018. 693

monitor trail usage. Between January 2018 and December 2018, counters recorded the following approximate average daily counts10:
• 240 bicyclists daily north of Imola Avenue in Napa (near South Napa Century Center) • 150 bicyclists daily at Salvador Avenue in Napa
• 180 bicyclists daily at north end of trail in Yountville Peak usage days reached high counts of approximately 470, 360, and 600 bicyclists at the above locations, respectively. The Vine Trail counters also indicate that seven in ten users are locals, and weekend days have much higher ridership, accounting for nearly 40 percent of weekly ridership.

Additionally, NVTA has periodically conducted manual counts at select locations throughout the county.

The most recent bicycle and pedestrian counts are from September 2015 and were taken at 21 locations in the Napa County municipalities and unincorporated areas. Appendix D contains recommendations for an ongoing NVTA count program.

Considerations for the Bicycle Plan
Work-related trips: The Plan must acknowledge that many commute trips for Napa residents are longer than a bikeable distance and so should focus on connections to transit services that serve employment centers.

Nonwork-related trips: Many trips are not work-related and are for purposes of running errands, visiting friends or family, entertainment, outings, and recreation. These trips have a large potential for mode shift since they tend to be shorter.

School-related trips: Development of a student or parent survey to understand travel choices can be part of a Safe Routes to School program.

Bicycle tourism: A complete bicycle network for Napa County will need a strong emphasis on wayfinding, amenities and facilities for a broad spectrum of riding abilities to account for visitors’ needs.

Bicycle ridership data: Development of an ongoing data collection strategy can help the county’s jurisdictions and agencies better understand changing ridership over time, help interpret collision data by estimating exposure, and potentially help quantify mode shift when paired with other data.

10 Counts are extrapolated from total average daily users multiplied by 0.6, the approximate percentage of users who are bicyclists (as opposed to pedestrians).
694

COLLISION TRENDS
One of the goals of this Plan is to improve safety for bicyclists, including a commitment to eliminating bicycle fatalities by 2035, and decreasing the overall number and severity of collisions. Understanding the current safety conditions and locations of high-injury corridors and intersections can support decisions on the location and type of infrastructure improvements to construct and how to prioritize the allocation of funding resources.

The data used in this analysis includes all reported crashes in Napa County involving at least one bicycle that resulted in an injury between 2006 and 2013.11 It is important to note that bicycle crashes are known to be under-reported. For example, single-bicycle crashes not involving a motor vehicle are not captured in public crash databases, even though they can be severe. Additionally, instances where both parties do not report the crash are not included. The number of unreported crashes in Napa County is unknown; a study conducted by the Federal Highway Administration found that 33 to 57.5 percent of all bicycle crashes potentially go unreported.12
As shown in Table 3.2, between 34 and 60 bicycle crashes occurred in Napa County each year from 2006 through 2013, or around thirty-five crashes annually per 100,000 residents. Of these crashes, six resulted in fatalities. Bicycle crashes accounted for an average of approximately five percent of all Napa County injuries and just under seven percent of its traffic fatalities and overall collisions.

Table 3.2. Crash totals and severity in Napa County, 2006-2013 (Source: TIMS) Year
Number of
Crashes
Number of Bicyclist Injuries
Fatal
Severe Other Visible Complaint of Pain Total13
2006 56 10 31 14 59 1
2007 54 6 31 17 55 0
2008 60 7 33 20 64 0
2009 34 5 14 14 36 1
2010 45 7 23 14 46 1
2011 41 7 25 9 43 0
2012 49 7 24 16 50 2
2013 51 8 29 13 52 1

11 The data used in this analysis is from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database, produced by SafeTREC at University of California, Berkeley. This database compiles collision data from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System for all injury crashes, excluding those reported as property damage only.
12 Federal Highway Administration. Injury to Pedestrians and Bicyclists: An Analysis based on Hospital Emergency Department Data. FHWARD-99-078. 1999.
13 Total crashes may not equal the sum of the injury type reported because only one "injury severity" is reported per crash; however, more than one bicyclist may be involved in a crash. 695

Location
Most (58 percent) of the bicycle crashes in Napa County occur in the City of Napa. Table 2.3 shows the number of reported bicycle crashes in each individual jurisdiction over the 2006 to 2013 time period.

Figures 3.2-6 shows an overview of crash locations which indicates a clear clustering of crashes in those areas with higher ridership: within the cities and along known recreational riding routes in the unincorporated areas of the county. A closer look at each jurisdictions’ crash history is presented in the individual jurisdiction plans. Those plans identify high-crash streets where a larger number of crashes have occurred, indicating that people are riding bicycles in these locations, and that safety issues may exist.

Table 3.3. Number and Location of Reported Bicycle Crashes in Napa County, 2006-2013 (Source: TIMS) Location Number
American Canyon 18
Calistoga 16
Napa 227
St. Helena 20
Yountville 1
Unincorporated Areas 108
Napa County (total) 390
696

Figure 3.2. Locations of Bicycle Crashes in Napa County, 2006-2013 – Northwest (Source: TIMS) 697

Figure 3.3. Locations of Bicycle Crashes in Napa County, 2006-2013 – Northeast (Source: TIMS) 698

Figure 3.4. Locations of Bicycle Crashes in Napa County, 2006-2013 – Central West (Source: TIMS) 699

Figure 3.5. Locations of Bicycle Crashes in Napa County, 2006-2013 – Central East (Source: TIMS) 700

Figure 3.6. Locations of Bicycle Crashes in Napa County, 2006-2013 – South (Source: TIMS) 701

DEMOGRAPHICS
In Napa County, children under 18 years of age comprise a significant number (26 percent) of those injured in bicycle crashes, as shown in Figure 3.7. In general, children are especially vulnerable road users due to their size (and therefore, driver difficulty in seeing them) and limited ability to judge speed and risk. A much smaller percentage of injury crashes in the unincorporated areas involved children than in the cities. This finding matches expectations since most of the riding in unincorporated areas is done by adult riders on longer recreational trips, whereas child bicyclists commonly ride in their neighborhoods.

Daily and Seasonal Trends
Bicycle collisions in Napa County are most common on Fridays, but otherwise occur with consistent frequency throughout the week. Most crashes (86 percent) occurred during daylight hours. Regarding seasonal trends, crashes are more common in the summer months and less common in the winter, consistent with the prevalence of bicycling throughout the year. May and October have the highest crash frequency.

Primary Collision Factors
Table 3.4 indicates the most common primary collision factors for bicycle crashes in Napa County. The bicyclist being on the “Wrong Side of Road” resulted in the most injuries. This usually implies that the bicyclist was traveling in the opposite direction of traffic, often on a sidewalk and was struck while in a pedestrian crossing or driveway. While the responsibility for this type of crash is assigned to the 103
1 13
155
9 8
5 0
7 72
7 10
Unincorporated Areas
Yountville
St Helena
Napa
Calistoga
American Canyon
Total Crashes
Under 18 18 and over
Figure 3.7. Number of Bicycle Crashes by Age in Napa County, 2006-2013 (Source: TIMS) 702

bicyclist, bicyclists in this situation are often trying to get to a location that cannot be accessed with bike facilities. As a result, they use other modal facilities or existing bike facilities in the wrong direction.

Some bicyclists may also not be fully informed about their rights and responsibilities as a road user and understand that they are required to ride in the same direction as other vehicle traffic. “Improper Turning” led to nearly all the reported fatalities. “Automobile Right of Way” (bicyclist not yielding) and unsafe speeds were also common reasons for collisions. Unfortunately, making infrastructure or programmatic recommendations is difficult for the primary collision factors labeled “Unknown,” “Other Hazardous Conditions,” and “Other Than Driver” because descriptions are not provided.

Table 3.4. Primary Collision Factors for Reported Bicycle Crashes in Napa County,2006-2013 (Source: TIMS) Primary Collision Factor Injury Killed Total
Bicyclist on Wrong Side of Road 93 0 93
Improper Turning 73 5 78
Automobile Right of Way (bicyclist not yielding) 71 1 72 Unsafe Speed (of vehicles) 45 0 45
Unknown 24 0 24
Traffic Signals and Signs (disregarded) 22 0 22
Other Hazardous Violation 20 0 20
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) 16 0 16
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 10 0 10 Considerations for the Bicycle Plan
Prioritize investments for high-crash locations: Streets with a large number of bicycle crashes indicate where people are already riding and investments could improve safety. These streets will be included in the bicycle network for improvements and could be prioritized for implementation.

Bikeway facility selection and education based on collision factors: Each of the high-frequency collision factors points to a need for both infrastructure and education. Suitable infrastructure can help make bicyclists’ movements more predictable and keep them separated from automobile traffic. Education can help all parties understand rules and responsibilities, as well as proper use of infrastructure to help avoid collisions.
703

Vision Zero: Numerous communities within the
Bay Area have adopted Vision Zero policies and
are developing action plans. These policies set
communities on a path toward safer roadways
for all users and may be a beneficial framework
for reducing fatal and severe bicycle crashes.

Safe routes to school: The high percentage of
children involved in crashes in the incorporated
areas indicates a need for both infrastructure
and education. Education recommendations can
be aimed at child bicyclists, parents, and drivers.

BICYCLE FACILITIES AND NETWORK
Investments in Napa County’s bicycle network over several decades has resulted in a continually expanding system. Napa County’s bicycle network includes shared routes, bike lanes and shared-use paths. Table 3.5 details the total mileage of each facility type within the cities, town, and unincorporated areas of Napa County.

Table 3.5. Bicycle Network Mileage
Jurisdiction Facility Type Existing Mileage Total Mileage City of
American
Canyon
Vine Trail (Class I) 2.4

13.1 Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 7.3
Bike Lanes (Class II) 1.6
Bike Routes (Class III) 1.8
City of Calistoga
Vine Trail (Class I) 1.0

6.0 Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 0.4
Bike Lanes (Class II) 1.0
Bike Routes (Class III) 3.6
City of Napa
Vine Trail (Class I) 7.0

49.0 Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 7.9
Bike Lanes (Class II) 28.5
Bike Routes (Class III) 5.6
City of St.

Helena
Vine Trail (Class I) -

2.5 Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 1.0
Bike Lanes (Class II) 1.3
Bike Routes (Class III) 0.2
Town of
Yountville
Vine Trail (Class I) 1.3

4.1 Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 1.2
Bike Lanes (Class II) 1.2
Bike Routes (Class III) 0.5
Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all
traffic fatalities and serious injuries, while
increasing safe, healthy equitable
mobility for all. Though people walking
and biking are generally most severely
impacted by traffic crashes, Vision Zero
applies to all modes.
704

Jurisdiction Facility Type Existing Mileage Total Mileage Unincorporated
Napa County
Vine Trail (Class I) 3.8

67.5 Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 7.7
Bike Lanes (Class II) 54.3
Bike Routes (Class III) 1.7
Countywide TOTAL 142.2
Napa County also contains 18 miles of the existing Bay Trail. The San Francisco Bay Trail is a planned 500-mile walking and cycling path around the entire San Francisco Bay running through all nine Bay Area Counties and 47 cities. The mission of the Bay Trail Project is a fully separated, paved pathway as close to the shoreline as possible. The trail currently varies between natural and paved surfaces. The Bay Trail Project has funded ten trail or bike lane projects in Napa County, and anticipates a new program and call projects in the near future. Table 3.6 contains existing and planned Bay Trail mileage in Napa County.

Table 3.6. Bay Trail Mileage in Napa County
Facility Type Existing Mileage
Paved Trails* 10.5
Natural surface 7.5
TOTAL 18
*The mileage for paved trails is also included in Table 3.5 under the “Shared-Use Paths (Class I)” category.

A map of the existing network in Napa County shown in Figures 3.8-12. Subsequently, the most common types of bicycle facilities are reviewed, focusing on their potential application within Napa County. Many facility types already exist within the county, but some have not yet been implemented and will be part of this Plan’s recommendations.
705

Figure 3.8. Existing Bicycle Facilities in Napa County– Northwest 706

Figure 3.9. Existing Bicycle Facilities in Napa County– Northeast 707

Figure 3.10. Existing Bicycle Facilities in Napa County– Central West 708

Figure 3.11. Existing Bicycle Facilities in Napa County– Central East 709

Figure 3.12. Existing Bicycle Facilities in Napa County– South 710

Facility Types
This section includes an overview of bicycle facility types and their application in Napa County.

Shared-Use Path (Class I) are two-way paved facilities, physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and used by bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized users. Shared-use paths are often located in an independent alignment, such as a greenway, though sometimes they are located adjacent to roadway. Shared-use paths
provide low-stress facilities for
bicyclists.

Some trails in Napa County,
although technically not
standard shared-use paths
provide connections within
neighborhoods or as cutthroughs to destinations (see
Figure 3.13) and are identified in
this plan. Although some of
these shared-use paths are
substandard in width compared
to best practices for Class I
design, they are separated from
automobile traffic and provide
important desired connections within the bicycle network. 14 The Vine Trail is a key shared-use path that is becoming the backbone of Napa County’s low-stress bicycle network. The largest completed segment currently connects the Town of Yountville to Kennedy Park at the south end of Napa. Additional small segments have been built elsewhere, and the completed Vine Trail will connect all Napa County jurisdictions as part of a 47-mile active transportation corridor between the Vallejo Ferry Terminal and Calistoga. The Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition and NVTA are actively working on planning, design, and construction of trail segments throughout the county.

Many of Napa County’s existing shared-use paths connect to the existing and future Vine Trail and natural areas. In addition to providing connectivity to the Vine Trail, these paths connect comfortable neighborhood streets together.

Examples of Shared-Use Path (Class I) in Napa County:
• Vine Trail (approximately 12 miles over all segments) • Wetlands Edge Road Trail (1.37 miles), part of the Bay Trail (18 miles in Napa County) • Connector path between Fairway Vista Ct. and Denise Dr. in Calistoga (0.10 miles)

14 Eight feet is the typical recommended minimum for any shared-use path. Some small connector paths in the county are as narrow as four feet.

Figure 3.13. Neighborhood connection in Calistoga
711

Bike Lanes (Class II) provide an
exclusive space for bicyclists in the
roadway and are established by
painting lines and symbols on the
roadway surface. Bike lanes are for
one-way travel and are typically
provided in both directions on twoway streets and/or on one side of a one-way street (see Figure 3.14).

Bike lanes are the most common
facility type in Napa County. Most
bike lanes are located on major
connector routes, such as Silverado
Trail, or on major arterials within
Napa County jurisdictions, such as
Soscol Avenue in Napa and American Canyon Road in American Canyon.

Bike lanes create a lower-stress riding environment on streets with a maximum posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour and traffic volumes between 3,000 and 6,000 vehicles per day. Many of the bicycle lanes in Napa County are on roadways with higher speeds which can result in a stressful bicycling environment for many bicyclists, including Interested but Concerned bicyclists. Some of these facilities are well used, however, by the many Napa County residents and visitors who are more comfortable with bicycling in high-speed environments.

Bike lanes may also be painted for greater
visibility to drivers and bicyclists. One of two
painted bike lanes in Napa County is located on
Valley View Street in St. Helena (see Figure

3.15). Another painted bike lane is located on SR
29 at Whitehall Lane; the bicycle lane crosses
skewed railroad tracks at this location, and the
painted bike lane provides an easily
understandable route for bicyclists to cross the
tracks at a safer angle (see Figure 3.16). This
facility was implemented by Caltrans.

Figure 3.15. Painted bike lane on Valley View St in St. Helena Figure 3.14. Bike Lane - Class II in St. Helena
712

Examples of Bike Lane - Class IIs in Napa County:
• Grant Street in Calistoga (0.3 miles)
• Silverado Trail from Calistoga to Napa
(approximately 26 miles)
• Pope Street in St. Helena (0.85 miles)
Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) are implemented by
painting or otherwise creating a flush buffer zone
between a bicycle lane and the adjacent travel
lane (see Figure 3.17). While buffers are typically
used between bike lanes and motor vehicle travel
lanes to increase bicyclists’ comfort, they can also
be installed between bicycle lanes and parking
lanes to reduce conflicts with opening car doors.

When located on streets with moderate traffic
volumes and speeds, buffered bike lanes provide a
lower-stress riding environment for bicyclists. No
buffered bike lanes exist today in Napa County.

Bike Routes and Bicycle Boulevards are two types
of Class III facilities in Napa County. This Plan
Update will include Class III Rural Routes and Class
III Bicycle Boulevards as facility types, but this
section describes the existing conditions in the
county where bike routes are applied more
broadly than in rural areas.

Bike routes are designated with pavement
markings or signage to indicate a shared lane
environment between bicyclists and drivers.

While signage and markings support wayfinding
and indicate bicyclist positioning on shared
streets, bicycle routes do not provide any
protection or separation between people driving
and people bicycling. When located on streets
that have high traffic speeds and/or volumes, bike
routes are uncomfortable and most people will
choose not to ride on them.

Currently, bike routes are located on a range of
roadway types from local, urban streets (see
Figure 3.18) to low-volume rural roads (see Figure

3.19). These routes connect to destinations such Figure 3.18. Bike route in St. Helena Figure 3.17. Buffered bike lane in Seattle, WA
Figure 3.16. Painted bike lane on SR 29
713

as shopping, schools, parks, or other bicycle facilities. Most bicycle routes in Napa County are in the City of Napa, where they comprise much of its downtown network. The City of Calistoga also has a network of bicycle routes that connect to existing trails and bicycle lanes throughout the city.

Bicycle boulevards are also indicated with
pavement markings and signage, but are
specifically located on low-speed, low-volume
streets, often in residential neighborhoods.

Bicycle boulevards are designed to prioritize
bicycle through-travel, while reducing motor
vehicle through traffic volumes and maintaining
relatively low speeds. When paired with
intersection treatments that help riders cross
major intersections, bicycle boulevards are an
attractive, low-stress facility (see Figure 3.20).

Bicycle boulevards are located on a limited
number of streets in Napa County and do not
include traffic calming or traffic diversion to
lower speeds and volumes. These bicycle
boulevards also do not cross major roadways
and do not have treatments to facilitate
bicyclists’ movement through large,
unsignalized intersections.

Examples of Class III Bicycle facilities in Napa
County:
• North Oak Street in Calistoga (Bike
route, 0.31 miles)
• Oakville Cross Road in the
unincorporated area of Napa County
(Bike route, 1.5 miles)
• Franklin Street in Napa (Bicycle
boulevard, 0.77 miles) Figure 3.20. Crossing island help reduce stress for bicyclists when crossing intersections. Example in Portland, OR.

Figure 3.19. Bike route along rural Silverado Trail
714

Separated Bike Lanes (Class IV) are an exclusive bikeway facility type that combines the user experience of a shared-use path with the on-street elements of a conventional bike lane (see Figure 3.21). They are recommended for roadways with speeds higher than 30 miles per hour and motor vehicle volumes over approximately 6,500 vehicles per day. Separated
bike lanes are physically separated from motor
vehicle traffic with a vertical element and are
distinct from the sidewalk. They can be located at
street level within the curbs, at an intermediate
level, or at sidewalk level, see Figure 3.22 below.

Numerous options are available for creating
separation between modes, ranging from lowcost paint and plastic flexpost installations, to more robust curb-separated lanes. Separated
bike lanes provide a low-stress riding
environment to all bicyclists. No separated bike
lanes currently exist in Napa County. Figure 3.21. Separated bike lane in Berkeley, CA Figure 3.22 Sidewalk level, intermediate level, and street level separated bike lanes, left to right. 715

Network Connectivity
The purpose of a bicycle network is to safely connect people to places. This is done through having facilities that feel comfortable to ride, that also connect to one another, and to important destinations.

To work toward meeting this Plan’s goal of shifting trips to bicycling, a safe, connected network must be in place that serves a wide range of riders.

A brief overview of each community’s connectivity is provided below, and greater detail is available in the jurisdictional plans (see Chapter 6-11).
• Calistoga’s bike network mostly consists
of bike routes, which offer shared street
experiences for drivers and bicyclists.

These routes are along local and collector
streets in the city and provide connections
to trails and recreational routes. Bike
lanes exist along the city’s portion of the
Silverado Trail and a small section of Grant
Street. Some community-created
wayfinding exists to help route bicyclists
to facilities, but it does not feature
destination or distance information (see
Figure 3.23). The low-speed, low-volume
nature of most of Calistoga’s streets
means that connectivity to destinations is
generally good.
• St. Helena has limited bike facilities. In
addition to some short trail and bike route
connections, the city has bike lanes along
Silverado Trail, Pope Street, and a short
segment of Valley View Street. Green painted bike lanes were installed on Valley View Street near St. Helena Primary School. These green bike lanes were implemented because of the poor sight line where the road curves on Valley View Street. Overall, many local streets in the city are already comfortable for riding, but they are not signed or marked as bicycle facilities and may not be considered to be part of the network. Additionally, connections to local schools and St.

Helena’s Main Street destinations could be improved.
• Most of Yountville’s bike facilities are shared-use paths. The Vine Trail is located along the western edge of the town and has one connection to downtown and residential neighborhoods, in addition to the north and south end points in town. Other trails connect streets in residential areas but are fairly narrow. Bike lanes are marked on Finnell Road and Yountville Cross Road to provide access to the regional Silverado Trail bike facilities. Yountville’s commercial areas and the local school could be better served by the bikeway network.

Figure 3.23. Bicycle route wayfinding in Calistoga
716

• Napa has the most developed bicycle network in the county and includes bicycle lanes along major roads such as Browns Valley Road, Soscol Avenue, and Lincoln Avenue. In the downtown area, a small network of bike routes/boulevards serves local destinations. Three main segments of the Vine Trail are within city limits. The cross-town commuter path, a portion of the Vine Trail from Redwood Road to near Soscol Avenue, provides cross-town access in the northern part of the City. A separate segment along the east bank of the Napa River at the southern end of the city connects downtown and neighborhoods to the commercial development in South Napa and on to Kennedy Park and Napa Valley College. Additionally, the Vine Trail connects north from Napa at the Redwood Park and Ride to Yountville. Many existing bike lanes are located on roads that connect to destinations, such as shopping centers at major intersections; however, a number of these streets present stressful riding environments with high-volume, higher-speed traffic.
• American Canyon’s bicycle network consists mostly of shared-use paths bordering and within green spaces and parks, such as the Wetlands Edge Road Trail, part of the Bay Trail. These trails also connect schools and neighborhoods. There are bike lanes on West American Canyon Road, Benton Way, and Elliot Drive to connect the central area of the city to paths along the perimeter. While Benton Way and Elliot Drive are comfortable bicycle facilities for a range of riders, the bike lanes on American Canyon Road, especially near/crossing SR 29, are a high-stress facility due to high traffic volumes and speeds.
• Unincorporated Napa County has concentrated bicycle infrastructure that connects the towns from north to south. The Bay Trail also has significant existing and planned mileage within unincorporated areas of Napa County. A few bike routes exist north of Yountville to help connect users to Silverado Trail. Silverado Trail has a bike lane for the majority of its length with a narrow shoulder in some constrained locations. Some sections feature raised dots along the edge line to alert drivers while allowing bicyclists to ride in the full width of the bike lane without impedance from a rumble strip. Most other bike routes in the unincorporated areas have signage, but no roadway markings.

Considerations for the Bicycle Plan
Facility choice: The Plan should provide guidance on appropriate facility choice for roadways that will create a low-stress riding environment that attracts riders of all abilities and comfort levels.

Connectivity: The recommended network must consider locations important to community members, such as schools, shopping centers, libraries and parks and transit hubs. 717

BICYCLE PROGRAMS
Napa County has several bike programs. These programs have diverse audiences, ranging from bike safety education for students to bike rental opportunities for tourists.

Safe Routes to School
Napa County established its Safe Routes to School program in 2010. Like its national counterpart, Napa County’s program is designed to create safe, convenient, and fun opportunities for children to walk and bike to and from school. The goal of the program is to increase students’ walking and bicycling rates to school in order to combat childhood obesity, improve air quality and reduce vehicle congestion around schools, and provide students with a mode of transportation that fosters self-reliance and independence.

The Safe Routes to School program is promoted through educational events, student prizes, and safety projects with school staff and volunteers, police departments, public health staff, and City traffic managers (see Figure 3.24). In previous years, the program was managed jointly between NVTA and the Napa County Office of Education (NCOE). For the 2018-2020 school years, the program is operated jointly by the Napa County Bicycle Coalition (NCBC) and NCOE with funding and management support of NVTA. As part of the current program, NCBC is conducting infrastructure reviews for walking and bicycling at all Napa County schools, with in-depth reviews at 13 high-need schools that will make recommendations for improving the safety of children walking and biking to school.

Figure 3.24. Napa County Safe Routes to School Training 718

Safety Education
The Napa County Bicycle Coalition, a bicycling
advocacy organization in Napa County, works to
identify issues affecting bicyclists and find
solutions by promoting bicycle infrastructure
and safety throughout the county. The Coalition
also organizes bike-related events, such as
BikeFest, an annual community event in
celebration of all things bike-related, which
includes bike safety demonstrations, skills
workshops/bike rodeo and an on-street ride for
kids known as KIDical Mass (see Figure 3.25).

Bike Rental
Napa County is home to many hotels and bed
and breakfasts catering to tourists. Many of
these lodgings supply their guests with hourly or
daily bike rentals.

In addition, the county has numerous bike shops
and bike tour companies that rent out bikes to
those looking to explore the area on two wheels.

Napa Valley Bike Tours has installed nine bike
rental “pods” throughout the county; all are
located on private property and are available to
the public. Several are located on resort and hotel
properties in Napa County that cater to tourists
looking for additional flexibility in where and when
to rent a bike (see Figure 3.26).

Considerations for the Bicycle Plan
Program responsibilities: The Plan must address
the various roles of NVTA, jurisdictions, and
community partners in execution of bicycle
programs.

Program content: Safety education is an
important base for bicycle-related education, but
the plan must build on existing themes to include messaging to all road users and education about infrastructure.

Figure 3.25. KIDical Mass Bike Tour and Safety Education during BikeFest
Figure 3.26. Napa Valley Bike Tours Self-Serve Spinway Bike Rental Station in Napa
719

KEY OPPORTUNITIES
Napa County is well on its way in working toward the goals of this Plan: connectivity, equity, safety, and education and encouragement. Work done by agencies, community governments, residents, advocates, and business leaders sets the stage for the recommendations that follow in this Plan. Those recommendations will focus on the following key opportunity areas:

Connect the existing network: The Vine Trail, Bay Trail, and other shared-use paths, bike lanes on streets with moderate speeds and volumes, and bike routes on local streets are the foundation for a countywide low-stress network. Bicycle network recommendations will connect these existing facilities.

Upgrade high-stress facilities: Communities have implemented bicycle facilities where people want to ride already, but some are high-stress. Bike network recommendations will highlight where high-stress bike facilities can be upgraded to provide low-stress bicycling that will attract more people to ride.

Focus on safety: Network prioritization will include consideration of bicycle crash history, and facility recommendations, both along roads and at intersections, will address crash causes. 720

Chapter 4: Proposed Bicycle Network and Programs
This Plan’s proposed bicycle network represents the desirable and appropriate facility for each of the streets within the study network. Construction of the entire proposed network will take place over time, often occurring as part of other resurfacing, reconstruction or development projects, though some recommendations will require standalone capital projects. Considerations of ease of implementation, anticipated prioritization, or timeline are addressed in Chapter 5: Implementation Strategy.

The proposed Bicycle Network was developed based on a data-driven analysis, best practices in planning for a safe, connected bicycle network, and jurisdictional staff and community input. This chapter provides an overview of how the proposed network was developed. The proposed network for each jurisdiction is discussed in the individual jurisdiction plans (see Chapters 6-11).

HOW THE NETWORK WAS DEVELOPED
Street Selection
The streets in the proposed bicycle network were selected as a part of a data-driven process. Streets considered for bicycle facilities were included based on data from several sources:
• All existing bicycle facilities
• The 2012 Plan network, including Class I paths
• Comments received on the WikiMap
• Review of Strava heat map data for rural recreational routes15 • Review of bicycle collision data
• Consideration of access to destinations such as schools, retail, transit hubs and parks This network was reviewed and edited by NVTA and jurisdiction staff to ensure streets and paths were appropriate and consistent with other plans. This “study network” was reviewed in further detail following the steps below.

Facility Selection
Each street included in the proposed network was assessed based on best practice understanding of bicycle planning and design. The determination of whether a particular facility type is suitable for a given roadway was based on the following criteria:

1. The network should be usable by bicyclists of all ages and abilities, and the types of infrastructure should be targeted toward the expected user group (e.g., lower-stress facilities within urban/suburban areas where less experienced riders may make short trips vs. higherstress facilities in rural areas frequented by confident recreational bicyclists).

2. Facility type should match with roadway and traffic characteristics, to allow the safest (real and perceived) facility for the road type, considering limitations such as road width.

15 Strava is an app used primarily by recreational bicyclists to track their rides. Approximate volumes of rides on a given road are shown on a heat map available at https://www.strava.com/heatmap. 721

3. Consistent facility types should be provided for a given route where feasible, and where roadway types warrant similar facilities.

Facility selection was based on
roadway and traffic
characteristics, including: posted
speed, number of travel lanes,
available roadway width, and field
observations. Additional input
from jurisdiction staff was also
considered.

Generally, recommendations
adhered to guidance in the draft
Bicycle Facilities Toolkit for this
Plan, including Figure 4.1.
16 This
facility selection guidance is based
upon the comfort level of an
Interested but Concerned rider,
representing the largest segment
of the population.

Recommendations that are
exceptions to this selection guidance include most of the rural roads in Unincorporated Napa County where it is assumed that people bicycling will be more experienced and have a higher tolerance for proximity to fast-moving traffic. There are a limited number of other project recommendations that may not result in a low-stress riding experience, but nearly all of the recommended facilities would contribute to building a low-stress bicycle network throughout Napa County.

PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK
A bicycle network in Napa County will accommodate the largest number of people if it provides facilities that serve Interested but Concerned riders. Given the right bicycle facilities, education, and encouragement, these residents and visitors may choose to ride a bicycle for transportation and recreation. Facilities that serve this group will also serve more confident bicyclists.

The proposed bicycle network includes over 450 miles of new facilities, as detailed in Table 4.1. Maps of the recommended network are provided in each of the individual jurisdiction plans in Chapter 6-11.

16 The chart in Figure 4.1 will be included in the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities which is currently under development.

Figure 4.1. Facility selection guidance based on speed and volume 722

Table 4.1. Proposed Bicycle Network
Facility Type Proposed Mileage Existing Mileage Total Future Mileage
Vine Trail (Shared-Use Path Class I) 27.4 15.5 42.9
Shared-Use Paths (Class I, excluding Vine Trail) 52.0 25.4 77.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) 86.8 87.8 174.7
Bike Boulevards (Class III) 37.4 - 37.4
Bike Routes (Class III) 243.4 13.5 256.9
Separated Bike Lanes (Class IV) 0.9 - 0.9
Corridor Study (not included in total)17 13.2 - 13.2
Total Network 459.3 142.2 602.4
The construction of these proposed facilities will create a safe, connected, and comfortable bicycle system to link to community destinations, such as schools, transit, trails, and retail areas. There are an additional 79 miles of proposed shared-use path (Class I) in this plan that will provide short- and longdistance off-street connections in Napa County communities. This Class I mileage includes planned segments of the Bay Trail in the southern portion of Napa County as well as other shared-use path projects throughout the rest of the county.

The proposed bicycle network also provides connections in unincorporated areas and to adjacent jurisdictions through rural bike routes (Class III). Typically, these facilities serve more confident bicyclists since they are on high-speed roads with little to no separation between bicyclists and automobiles.

Recommendations about the process for implementing these facilities are included in Chapter 5.

Proposed Regional Trails
In addition to the proposed network of this plan, two major regional trail efforts exist that pass through Napa County: the Bay Trail and the Bay Area Ridge Trail. Each of these long-distance recreational trails has their own planning effort that works in collaboration with jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area.

Portions will be implemented as Class I facilities and in some instances overlap with the Vine Trail, and portions may continue to be unpaved trails. Their mileages are not included in the table above unless a designated portion of one of these trails was already included in the 2012 Bicycle Plan as a Class I recommendation.

17 Some streets in the City of Napa are recommended for corridor studies to determine the appropriate bicycle facility type and means of implementation because their current configuration and operations are too complex for a determination to be made within the course of this Plan Update.
723

Figure 4.2. Proposed Regional Trails in Napa County– Northwest 724

Figure 4.3. Proposed Regional Trails in Napa County– Northeast 725

Figure 4.4. Proposed Regional Trails in Napa County– Central West 726

Figure 4.5. Proposed Regional Trails in Napa County– Central East 727

Figure 4.6. Proposed Regional Trails in Napa County– South 728

PROPOSED SUPPORT PROGRAMS

AND POLICIES
Policies and support programs are key components of a
welcoming, bicycle-friendly community. Along with bike
network investments, programs and policies will help
Napa County communities realize the Plan’s goals of
connectivity, equity, safety, and education and
encouragement. Generally, policies are set by local or
state government, while programs are led by or
executed in partnership with external organizations or
agencies such as advocacy organizations or school
districts.

The programs and policies presented in Table 4.2 are
proposed to be implemented by NVTA. Proposed
programs and policies for each jurisdiction are outlined in the jurisdictional plans (Chapters 6-11).

Table 4.2. Recommended NVTA Support Policies and Programs Support
Policies/Program Description Plan Goals
Vision Zero
Policy
Adopt a countywide Vision Zero policy and develop an action plan for implementing Vision Zero. Identify opportunities for funding for Vision Zero efforts, such as developing a Countywide database to inventory collision data and environmental factors, undertaking a comprehensive analysis to understand collision patterns, and facilitating an outreach process to identify community safety priorities and determine where to focus safety investments and improvements.

Safety
Existing Bikeways
Policy
Develop a policy which specifies that existing bikeways should not be removed, unless an improved bikeway is being installed.

Connectivity; Safety
Bicycle Voucher
Program (Bucks
for Bikes)
Provides up to $100 voucher for new bicycle purchased for commuting
Education &
Encouragement
Bicycle Parking
Program
Develop a bike parking program in which businesses, or others as appropriate, may apply for funds from NVTA for the purchase of bicycle racks and/or lockers.

Education &
Encouragement
Bike Share
Program
Pursue opportunities for creating a Bike Share program designed to encourage making short distance trips by bicycle and to provide a transportation alternative for zero vehicle households Education &
Encouragement /Equity
Wayfinding Create and install countywide bicycle wayfinding to help bicyclists navigate the roadway network with confidence and find their way past barriers, such as complex intersections or high-stress streets. Coordinate wayfinding across County jurisdictions.

Education &
Encouragement
The League of American Bicyclists categorizes
the five aspects of a Bicycle Community as
follows:

Engineering: Creating safe and convenient
places to ride and park
Encouragement: Creates a strong bike culture
that welcomes and celebrates bicycling
Education: Gives people of all ages and ability
levels the skills and confidence to ride
Enforcement: Ensures safe roads for all users
Evaluation and Planning: Plans for bicycling as
a safe and viable transportation option
729

Support
Policies/Program Description Plan Goals
Bicycle Friendly
Community
Status
Create a coordinated countywide effort towards applying for, and achieving, Bicycle Friendly Community status from the League of American Bicyclists. (The City of Calistoga became a Silver Bicycle Friendly Community in 2013, and the City of Napa became a Bronze Bicycle Friendly Community in 2016.)
Education &
Encouragement
Bicycle Count
Program
Develop bicycle count strategies that are implementable in the short-term and assist NVTA as it measures progress towards achieving the goal of 10 percent mode shift by 2035. See Appendix D for bicycle count program recommendations.

Safety; Education &
Encouragement
Data Sharing
Program
Maintain a comprehensive database of bikeways throughout Napa County and, to track progress, develop a process for jurisdictions to share updated project implementation/data with NVTA once projects are completed.

Connectivity
Dedicated
Bicycle Staff
Identify a staff member at NVTA who is responsible for bicycle planning and the implementation of bicycle facilities and dedicate a percentage of their time to these efforts.

All
Dedicated Safe
Routes to School
funding
Pursue coordination of sources to ensure consistent funding for Safe Routes to School programming throughout the County’s school districts.

Safety; Education &
Encouragement
Bikeway
Maintenance
Prioritize maintenance of roadways and removal of debris where bicycle facilities are present
Safety &
Encouragement

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
NVTA intends to monitor progress on the implementation of this Plan over time. Performance measures will be used to evaluate how implementation is progressing, whether policies are being established and implemented as planned, and whether plan goals are being achieved. Performance measures for the proposed bicycle network are presented in Table 4.3. Due to varying constraints, some targets may be more difficult to meet than others.

Table 4.3. Performance Measures
Plan Goal Performance Measure Performance Reporting
Connectivity
Number of bicycle facility projects
constructed per year
Establish a construction pace of one bicycle
capital project per year per smaller jurisdictions,
two per year in American Canyon, and three per
year in the City of Napa and Napa County.
(Includes projects implemented with Measure T
repaving/rehabilitation)
Development of practice to review Bicycle
Plan for all projects
Establish a formal practice of reviewing Bicycle
Plan for all street resurfacing or construction
projects, and development review applications
Level of stress for bicyclists
By 2035 increase by 20% the mileage of
roadways that have low levels of stress for
bicyclists
730

Plan Goal Performance Measure Performance Reporting
Equity
Projects located in or serving Communities
of Concern, other known areas of nonautomobile ownership, or areas with historically less bicycle infrastructure
All projects are evaluated for location relative
to equity areas, and at least one implemented
each year within Napa County.

Education and encouragement
materials/programs created for
underserved groups
Creation of programming and materials in
partnership or reviewed by community groups
that serve underserved populations; Creation of
programming and materials in languages other
than English
Safety
Number of reported bicycle collisions
Reduce the number of reported bicycle
collisions by 50% from 2013-2016 average by
2029
Number of serious injury and fatal bicycle
collisions
Reduce the number of serious injury and fatal
bicycle collisions to zero by 2035
Education &
Encouragement
Number of bicycle commuters Increase bicycle mode share to 10% by 2035 Number of Bicycle Friendly Community
applications
All Napa County communities have applied for
Bicycle Friendly Community status by 2024
Number of students reached by SRTS
programming
All K-8 schools within Napa County participate
in SRTS programming by 2024
NVTA should devote staff time to creating an annual report that provides an update on the measures listed above and on progress toward implementation of plan infrastructure, policy, and program recommendations. Coordination will be necessary with the various jurisdictions to track several of these measures, and coordination will be necessary with the NCBC and NCOE regarding the Safe Routes to School reporting. This annual report will keep NVTA and its jurisdiction partners accountable for implementation of these Plan recommendations and continued improvement to the bicycling environment within Napa County.
731

Chapter 5: Implementation Strategy
The infrastructure recommendations of this Plan will be implemented over time by the various jurisdictions within Napa County. Many on-street projects will be implemented as part of other resurfacing or construction projects. Generally, shared-use paths will be stand-alone projects, sometimes completed in coordination with new development in an area, and sometimes completed over a long period of time in segments as funding is available for these higher-cost facilities. Physical and environmental constraints can also impact the choice of implementation method and influence project phasing.

IMPLEMENTATION METHODS
The means by which bicycle infrastructure is implemented vary depending on the facility type. This section discusses typical methods by which individual Napa County jurisdictions will grow their bicycle networks. The network recommendations of this plan are suited to the streets where they are located, but specific recommendations as to how each facility should be implemented will be determined by implementing agencies. Jurisdiction staff can consult this overview and the Facility Toolkit in Appendix A for further guidance.

Resurfacing and Restriping
One of the best opportunities Napa County jurisdictions have for implementing on-street bike facilities is the Measure T resurfacing and rehabilitation program. Resurfacing and rehabilitation entails paving some or all of an existing street section. In these cases, the addition of bike facilities may be accomplished simply through striping. Restriping also works within the existing street section width, but projects of this type can involve removing and replacing existing roadway striping to reconfigure the street for a bike facility.

Both methods allow for the reconfiguration of existing roadway space, which can take the form of narrowing travel lanes, or reallocating travel lanes or parking lanes to accommodate bike lanes or Class IV separated bike lane facilities. Each individual street will need to be studied at the time of implementation, and a community discussion about reallocation of space may be needed. Class III bicycle boulevard markings, shared lane markings, vertical traffic calming, and bikeable shoulders can also be implemented in conjunction with resurfacing and restriping.

Reconstruction
Street reconstruction projects also provide an opportunity to implement bike facilities. Reconstruction projects address a greater depth of the roadway, often fixing more significant maintenance and quality issues than what can be addressed through resurfacing. For bike facility implementation, the key difference is that some reconstruction projects can involve moving curbs to accommodate bike facilities or to implement traffic calming measures such as chicanes, curb extensions, or tighter curb radii.

Reallocation of roadway space, as addressed above, and construction of vertical traffic calming elements is also possible with reconstruction projects. Most on-street recommendations in this plan can be implemented without acquisition of additional right-of-way, but where that is required, a project will require reconstruction rather than resurfacing.
732

In some cases, reconstruction offers the opportunity to reconfigure intersections so they work better for bicyclists. For example, removal of slip lanes can benefit bicyclists by removing a point of potential conflict with automobiles. Class IV separated bike lanes and shared-use paths can also be implemented in reconstruction projects where the roadway edge is being addressed.

Construction
In this Plan context, “construction” refers to standalone projects. These are Shared-Use Path - Class I projects outside the right-of-way, or those that, while in the right-of-way, can be implemented outside the existing street. Construction projects can also include new bridges and underpasses intended for bicyclist and pedestrian travel, such as the planned SR 29 Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing project in the City of Napa.

Minor construction may include roadway widening to accommodate bike lanes or shoulders along a roadway. This can occur along the entire length of the facility or at select locations with poor sightlines, where spot widening would provide dedicated space for bicyclists, helping lower the chance of collisions.

Approaches for Specific Facility Types
Bicycle Boulevards (Class III)
Bicycle boulevards are intended to provide a continuous low-speed, low-volume riding experience for bicyclists. Streets in this Plan that are recommended for bike boulevards are, in many cases, already comfortable places to ride a bike for most people. However, where these streets cross major streets without signals or all-way stop signs, additional treatments may be needed to provide a seamless bicycling experience. When implementing bike boulevards, jurisdictions should focus first on these intersections. Without additional accommodation, bicyclists need to wait for a gap in high-volume, higher-speed traffic to cross these streets. Such challenging crossings present a barrier that may keep someone from making a trip by bike. Crossing improvements for bicyclists can take the form of bike crossing warning signage, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, curb extensions, and median islands.
733

Offset crossings are also a key
issue along bike boulevard
routes. In cases where the route
jogs along a major street,
jurisdictions should note the
location of existing traffic
control and consider design
treatments that allow riders to
cross at that location. One
technique used in bike
boulevard design is a two-way
bike facility on one side of the
street between the offset streets
(see Figure 5.1).

Additional measures to be considered when designing for bike boulevard implementation are:
• Wayfinding to direct riders along local street routes with numerous turns • Diversion of through traffic at intersections to maintain low traffic volumes Information on these implementation tools is provided in Appendix A.

Rural Bike Routes (Class III)
Rural bike routes in this Plan are largely intended for the “Somewhat Confident” and “Highly Confident” rider types.

As such, they do not provide a great deal of separation from traffic, but there are a few key implementation approaches that can improve the riding environment, even on highspeed streets.

Jurisdictions should begin improving rural bike routes by identifying locations where sightlines are challenging. These most often occur at the crests of hills or on tight curves.

Installation of warning signage indicating bicyclists on the roadway is recommended as a first step toward improving bicyclist safety at these locations (see Figure 5.2). Beyond that, spot widenings for bikeable (minimum three-foot)
shoulders should be considered in these locations. Many of Napa County’s rural roads will have topography challenges at the roadway edge which may limit the ability to widen shoulders.

Figure 5.1. Two-way bike facility in Fort Collins, Colorado Figure 5.2. MUTCD W11-1 Bicycle Warning
Sign
734

Where rural bike routes are adjacent to city and town boundaries or they enter or exit more developed areas, such as near Angwin, or, application of shared lane markings should be considered as well. Some of these rural bike routes may also warrant temporary signage during known recreational riding events to alert drivers to the presence of a significant number of bicyclists.

Improving Existing Bike Lanes (Class II)
There are numerous existing bike lanes in Napa County that could be improved with recommended treatments from the Facility Toolbox, especially near intersections. When resurfacing streets with existing bike lanes, jurisdictions should consider application of treatments such as appropriate placement of bike lanes with respect to turn lanes, highlighted marking of conflict areas, and continuation of bike lanes through intersections to indicate riders’ path of travel.

PROJECT PHASING
All jurisdictions within Napa County have limited funding for implementing the facilities recommended in the bicycle network of this Plan. While the 6.67 percent (collective) Equivalent Funds requirement for Class I under the Measure T ordinance is a known current source of funding18, this Plan recognizes that availability of other needed funds is uncertain at this time. In light of this, jurisdictions should bear several implementation approaches and priorities in mind when phasing projects.

Individual projects in this Plan consist of a network recommendation that is defined by the following criteria:
• Within one jurisdiction
• Consisting of one facility type
• Located on one street
Each project may be implemented one at a time, though implementing adjacent bicycle boulevard projects along a single route would be advantageous for bicycle connectivity.

Immediate-Term
Every jurisdiction’s Measure T five-year repaving plan has been reviewed against the recommended bicycle network, and overlaps are indicated in the individual jurisdiction plans. These on-street bicycle facility recommendations should be reviewed immediately for potential integration into striping plans.

18 In order for Project Sponsors to receive Measure T revenues, jurisdictions collectively must demonstrate that at least 6.67% of the amount (referred to as “Equivalent Funds”) of Measure T revenues received each year is being committed to Class I facilities identified in the adopted Countywide Bicycle Plan/Active Transportation Plan, using funds not derived from the Measure T Ordinance.
735

Short- and Medium-Term
All other planned street resurfacing and reconstruction projects should be reviewed against the recommended bike network. Another early step in the implementation of the bicycle plan should be to answer the following questions about each project:
• Does a facility consist only of striping and signage that can be added at any time? • Does a facility necessitate further community dialog regarding reallocation of street space? • Does a project need significant funding that must be obtained through a competitive process (i.e., grant)?
• Does a project necessitate acquiring additional right-of-way? • Are there any environmental concerns about a project location? These questions can help direct staff to understand which projects are more readily implementable.

Additionally, public input received over the course of this Plan process indicates greater interest in connecting to certain destinations including: schools, parks, trailheads, and community centers. The locations of these destinations, as well as other known bicycle traffic generators such as hotels with bike rental schemes should be considered when selecting projects for earlier implementation.

Long-Term
Some projects, such as many Class I shared-use paths, will necessarily require a more sustained effort to come to fruition. While it may take a longer time to implement these projects, jurisdictions should begin to consider the steps toward construction of these projects so they are prepared for grant applications or inserting funding into capital improvement plans, including the 6.67 percent Equivalent Funds commitment submitted every other year with the 5-year Measure T paving program.

Connectivity Improvements from Phased Implementation
As stated, the planned bicycle facilities for Napa County are intended to create the most low-stress network that conditions allow. Implementation of on-street facilities such as bike boulevards (Class III) and bike lanes (Class II) will significantly improve the connectivity of the bicycle network for riders of all ages and abilities. Focusing first on intersection treatments at locations where these facilities cross highspeed, high-volume streets without a traffic signal will most quickly improve connectivity.

While shared-use paths (Class I facilities) provide a low-stress riding environment for all types of bicyclists, their implementation requires more investment and often more planning than on-street facilities. The connectivity improvements provided by these higher-cost, higher-effort facilities supplement improvements from on-street facilities, but it is understood that these improvements are more likely to be long-term projects.
736

COST ESTIMATION
Planning-level cost estimates were developed for the projects recommended in this Plan to help jurisdictions plan for budgeting and to provide information for grant applications. As noted, each of the facility types recommended can be implemented in several different ways. High- and low-end cost estimates are provided for Class II and Class IV facilities based on differing means of implementation.

There will also be variations in the actual facilities themselves: for instance, different rural bike route sections may have two spot shoulder widenings per mile or none. Similarly, a Class I path may be anywhere from eight to twelve feet depending upon available space and projected volumes, and a bike boulevard may include intersection improvements ranging from low-cost wayfinding signage to more expensive construction of a median island and installation of rectangular rapid flashing beacons. The cost estimates provided assume an average level of treatment and will need more refinement when projects move to design.

Further detail about assumptions included in the per-mile estimates in Table 5.1 are included in Appendix G.

Table 5.1 Planning Level Cost Estimates for Bicycle Facilities19 Facility Types High/Low Cost per Mile
Shared-Use Path – Class I $ 1,170,000.00
Bicycle Lanes - Without Buffer – Class II Low $ 60,000.00 Bicycle Lanes - Without Buffer – Class II High $ 190,000.00 Bicycle Lanes - With Buffer – Class II Low $ 90,000.00
Bicycle Lanes - With Buffer – Class II High $ 230,000.00 Bike Boulevards (Shared Lanes) – Class III $ 120,000.00 Rural Routes (Shared Lanes) – Class III $ 40,000.00
Separated Bike Lanes – Buffer + Posts – Class IV $ 110,000.00 Separated Bike Lanes - Concrete Curb – Class IV $ 750,000.00

19 Planning level cost estimates do not include the cost of right-of-way acquisition which can significantly increase the per-mile cost of facility implementation.
737

FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Grants present an opportunity to secure funding for implementing the Proposed Bicycle Network, and the jurisdiction’s General and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds can be used to leverage regional, state, and federal funding. See Table 5.2 for a summary of available grants.

Table 5.2. Potential funding sources for bicycle programs and projects Funding
Sources
Administering
Agency
Availability of
Funding Notes Eligible Improvements
Eligible for
Measure T
Equivalent Funds
Weblink
Countywide Funding Sources
One Bay Area
Grant (OBAG) 2
Program
Napa Valley
Transportation
Authority
OBAG current
round of funding
funds projects
from 2017/18 -
2021/22
Infrastructure projects that reduce vehicle
trips, including pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. Funded by the federal Surface
Transportation Program and Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
(CMAQ) Program.

Bikeways and crossing
improvements. Yes
https://mtc.ca.g
ov/ourwork/fundinvest/federalfunding/obag-2
Measure T
Equivalent
Funds
Napa Valley
Transportation
Authority
Varies-Other nonMeasure T funds
(Gas tax, general
funds etc.) from
non-competitive
sources
Supplementing Measure T, jurisdictions
(collectively) are required to commit funds
from other sources equivalent to 6.67% of
the annual Measure T revenue collected
Funds the construction or
maintenance of Class I
facilities
N/A
http://www.nvta
.ca.gov/
measure-t
Measure T
Napa Valley
Transportation
Authority
Funding allocated
to municipal and
county
governments in
Napa County
Funded through a half-cent sales tax
Measure T funds local
street and road
rehabilitation and
supporting infrastructure.

Jurisdictions are subject to
complete streets
requirements so when
upgrades are appropriate,
Class 2 and 4 facilities can
be funded with Measure T.

N/A
http://www.nvta
.ca.gov/
measure-t
Transportation
Development
Act Article 3
Metropolitan
Planning
Commission/
Napa Valley
Transportation
Authority
Annual/Allocation
-NVTA programs
funds for three
years. Current
program is FY
2018-19 through
2020-21
Funds plans (once every 5-years per
jurisdiction), safety education (not more
than 5% of total annual allocation), and
design and construction of capital projects.

Each county coordinates a consolidated
annual request for projects to be funded in
the county.

Bikeways, crossing
improvements and
safety/education/training
programs for school
children and the general
population.

Yes
https://mtc.ca.g
ov/ourwork/fundinvest/investme
nt-strategiescommitments/tr
ansit-21stcentury/fundingsales-tax-and-0
738

Funding
Sources
Administering
Agency
Availability of
Funding Notes Eligible Improvements
Eligible for
Measure T
Equivalent Funds
Weblink
Transportation
Fund for Clean
Air (TFCA)
Program
Manager Funds
(40%)
Bay Area Air
Quality
Management
District/NVTA
Annual-NVTA now
programs funds
for three yearsFunds are
currently
programmed for
FY2019-20
through 2021-22
Funds projects that improve air quality.

Must meet cost-effectiveness requirements
Bicycle and pedestrian
projects-capital projects
only
Yes
http://www.baa
qmd.gov/grantfunding/publicagencies/regiona
l-fund
Regional Funding Sources
Regional Active
Transportation
Program
Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission
Varies; the last
"Cycle" of
projects (Cycle

3.5) was accepted
in August 2017
Consolidation of several older grant
programs, including State SR2S and Bicycle
Transportation Account. Funds a wide range
of capital and non-capital projects. Both
programs give some
preference to projects in disadvantaged
communities. The state program is
competitive among jurisdictions statewide;
the regional program is competitive among
Bay Area jurisdictions.

Bikeways, crossing
improvements and most
programmatic activities.

No www.mtc.ca.gov
/funding/ATP
Transportation
Fund for Clean
Air Regional
Fund (60%)
Bay Area Air
Quality
Management
District
Annually (last
submittals were
due in April 2017)
Funds bicycle facilities, including paths,
lanes, routes, lockers and racks. The
Regional Fund is competitive among Bay
Area jurisdictions
Bikeways and bicycle
crossing improvements. No
www.baaqmd.go
v/grantfunding/publicag
encies/regionalfund
Bicycle Rack
Voucher
Program
Bay Area Air
Quality
Management
District
Ongoing; last
cycle closed in
June 2016
Vouchers for up to $60 per bicycle parking
space created (up to $15,000 per applicant
per year. Racks must be installed within onetenth of a mile of at least one major activity center and maintained in service for at least
three years. Available only to public
agencies.

Bicycle parking racks No
http://www.baa
qmd.gov/grantfunding/publicagencies/brvp
State Funding Sources
State Active
Transportation
Program Caltrans
Varies; next call
for projects will
be in Spring 2020.

Consolidation of several older grant
programs, including State Safe Routes to
School and Bicycle Transportation Account.

Funds a wide range of capital and noncapital projects. Both programs give some Bikeways, crossing
improvements and most
programmatic activities.

No
www.dot.ca.gov
/hq/LocalProgra
ms/atp
739

Funding
Sources
Administering
Agency
Availability of
Funding Notes Eligible Improvements
Eligible for
Measure T
Equivalent Funds
Weblink
preference to projects in disadvantaged
communities. The state program is
competitive among jurisdictions statewide;
the regional program is competitive among
Bay Area jurisdictions.

California
Office of Traffic
Safety grants
California OTS Annually
For traffic-safety education, awareness and
enforcement programs aimed at drivers,
pedestrians and cyclists.

Certain activities under the
SR2S, safety/education and
enforcement programs.

No
www.ots.ca.gov/
Grants/default.a
sp
California State
Parks
Recreational
Trails Program
(RTP)
California
Department of
Parks and
Recreation
and Caltrans
Active
Transportation
Program
Next cycle is
scheduled for
2019.

Applicants are required to provide a 12
percent match.

Recreational trails and trailrelated projects, including Class I bicycle paths
No
https://www.par
ks.ca.gov/?page
_id=24324
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program
Caltrans
Varies; most
recent call for
projects was in
spring 2018 with
projects selected
in November
2018
For projects and programs that reduce
traffic fatalities and serious injuries by
correcting or improving a specific problem.

Highly competitive at the state level.

Safety-related pedestrian,
bikeway and crossing
projects. Certain activities
under the SR2S,
safety/education and
enforcement programs;
also, certain spot
improvements.

No
www.dot.ca.gov
/hq/LocalProgra
ms/hsip.html
Affordable
Housing and
Sustainable
Communities
Program
California
Strategic
Growth
Council
Annually; last call
for projects will
close February
2019
Projects that facilitate compact
development, including bicycle
infrastructure and amenities, with
neighborhood scale impacts. Available to
government agencies and institutions
(including local government, transit agencies
and school districts), developers and nonprofit organizations.

Bikeways and crossing
improvements, particularly
those in the area covered in
specific plans
No
www.sgc.ca.gov/
GrantPrograms/AHSCP
rogram.html
740

Chapter 10: City of American Canyon Bicycle Plan
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Plan Introduction
The American Canyon Bicycle Plan is intended to guide development of infrastructure, programs, and policies that improve the bicycling environment for all residents and visitors in this Napa Valley community. American Canyon’s Plan will help the City work towards the adopted goals for bicycling in Napa County: connectivity, equity, safety, and education and encouragement. Planning and design for bicycling has evolved since adoption of the American Canyon Bicycle Plan in 2012, and this Plan update brings the latest best practices to bear on recommendations for implementation by City staff.

Area Overview
The City of American Canyon is located at the southern end of Napa County, approximately 35 miles northeast of San Francisco. Incorporated in 1992, American Canyon is the youngest community in Napa County. One of the two Priority Development Areas (PDA) in Napa County is in American Canyon along the SR 29 corridor. The Napa County Airport adjoins the City on the north, and the City of Vallejo in Solano County shares a contiguous border with American Canyon on the south. State Route (SR) 29, which runs north-south, bisects American Canyon. American Canyon Creek, a tributary of the Napa River, runs through the City.

The City of American Canyon has
a population of approximately
20,000 residents. It has a
compact land use pattern, with
relatively low-volume streets and
a well-developed network of
sidewalks and pathways. The
community’s small land area and
mostly flat topography create
many opportunities for residents
to bicycle (see Figure AC.1).

Residential housing, commercial,
and industrial uses are the
predominant land use types in
American Canyon.

Many people who work in Upper
Napa Valley live in American Canyon or Vallejo, and SR 29 through American Canyon has a high volume of daily traffic with people commuting to and from work. Due to the high traffic volumes and lack of alternatives routes, bicycling between American Canyon and Napa, or crossing SR 29 from east to west, is uncomfortable for any but the most intrepid bicyclists.

Figure AC.1. Bicyclist on Benton Way adjacent to Community Park 2. 741

American Canyon’s location within Napa Valley and local attractions make it a popular destination for tourists. Popular activities in the area include winery tours, exploring the Napa River and Bay Trail on foot or bike, birdwatching in San Pablo Bay, and golfing.

American Canyon is a part of the Napa Valley Unified School District which also serves the City of Napa and Town of Yountville. The city is home to five public schools: Donaldson Way Elementary School (grades K-5), Canyon Oaks Elementary School (grades K-5), Napa Junction Magnet Elementary School (grades K-5), American Canyon Middle School (grades 6-8), and American Canyon High School (grades 9- 12). Donaldson Way Elementary, Canyon Oaks Elementary, Napa Junction Magnet Elementary, and American Canyon High School are located on Donaldson Way, Silver Oak Trail, Napa Junction Road, and Newell Drive, respectively, all of which have no bicycle infrastructure. American Canyon Middle School is located on Benton Way, which has bike lanes (Class II). Currently, bicycling to school can be difficult for students, and SR 29 creates an additional barrier.

Relationship to Existing Plans
This 2019 Bicycle Plan is an update to the 2012 American Canyon Bicycle Plan and builds upon the recommendations on bikeways, policies, programs, and design standards detailed in the Broadway District Specific Plan (in progress), the SR 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan (2014), and the General Plan (1994). In addition, this 2019 Plan incorporates applicable recommendations from the 2016 Napa Countywide Pedestrian Plan and establishes an implementation plan to encourage more walking trips throughout Napa County and improve safety for all users.

For more information about these plans, see Appendix D of the 2019 Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan. 742

SECTION 2: GOALS AND POLICIES
Countywide Vision and Goals
The Countywide vision statement, goals, and policies were developed to guide recommendations in both the Countywide Plan and the jurisdiction plans, including the American Canyon Bicycle Plan. The vision statement, goals, and policies will be used to evaluate progress of Plan implementation.

Vision Statement
Napa County’s vision is to be a bicycle-friendly community with a world-class bicycling system for all ages and abilities. The comprehensive, connected bicycle system will provide people with safe, convenient and enjoyable access to destinations throughout all Napa County jurisdictions and beyond.

Residents and visitors will enjoy bicycling for everyday commuting, non-work trips and recreation.

Bicycling contributes to a high quality of life, promotes health and will help achieve a 10 percent mode shift in Napa County by 2035.

Goals and Policies
The goals and policies developed for the 2019 Plan will guide American Canyon and other Napa County communities in improving the bicycling environment for residents and visitors.

Table AC.1. Goals and Policies of the Plan
Goals Policies
Connectivity Develop a welldesigned low
Level of Traffic
Stress (LTS)
connected bicycle
network
• Build and maintain a local and countywide bicycle transportation and recreation network that connects Napa County’s
incorporated cities/town and unincorporated communities and provides access to public transportation and community
destinations.
• Develop and maintain continuous low Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) bicycle facilities of all types to provide accessible intra-city connections that serve as the framework of the Countywide Bikeway System.
• Prioritize coordination and completion of regionally significant primary bikeways including the Napa Valley Vine Trail, the Bay Trail and the Ridge Trail, and local connections to those facilities. • Provide secure bicycle parking at public and private destinations throughout Napa County.
• Integrate the bicycle network and bicycle facility amenities into land use decisions and developments.

Equity Improve bicycle
access for
disadvantaged
and/or
underserved
communities
• Implement projects that improve access for disadvantaged and/or underserved communities, particularly those reliant on walking, biking and transit for transportation.
743

Goals Policies
Safety Improve safety
for all ages and
abilities
• Work to reduce the number and severity of bicycle collisions. • Work to reduce bicycle fatalities to zero by 2035.
• Improve locations that have high incidences of bicycle collisions, and/or impediments or conflicts to bicyclists.
• Implement Complete Streets policies that ensure accommodation and enable safe access for users of all ages and abilities. • Implement appropriate, well-designed bicycle facilities using accepted design standards, including intersection and other crossing improvements.

Education &
Encouragement
Increase mode
share of bicycling
• Encourage education programs for all users of the roadway in all jurisdictions and school districts.
• Develop programs and public outreach materials to promote safety and the positive benefits of bicycling.

Serving All Types of Bicyclists
Many factors contribute to people choosing to ride a bicycle, with a major factor being the rider’s perception of safety. A rider’s perception of an unsafe route can be related to numerous things but is most often related to riding adjacent to high-traffic and high-speed roadways or crossing busy intersections with little or no separation from vehicles. Research has found that a large percentage of the American population is interested in bicycling for transportation but does not currently do so because they believe the routes they would need to travel are unsafe or feel uncomfortable. Many people feel safer and more comfortable riding on low-traffic, low-speed streets or on facilities that provide protection or physical separation from fast-moving traffic.36 Most people in the U.S. – between 50 and 60 percent – have little tolerance for interacting with motor vehicle traffic unless volumes and speeds are very low (see Figure 2.1).37 This group of riders is referred to as “Interested but Concerned,” reflecting both their interest in bicycling for transportation as well as concerns about safety and comfort when interacting with motor vehicle traffic.

This framework of rider types was used to assess the existing bicycle network and to select recommended facility types for the 2019 Plan. This rider type has the highest potential for increasing bicycle mode share if facility types that support and encourage biking are available.

36 Source: Dill, J. McNeil, N. “Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey” Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting, 2016.
37 Studies, such as the one referenced above, show that approximately one third of the adult population is not currently interested in bicycling or able to bicycle.
744

Figure AC.2. Level of Traffic Stress and Bicycle Riders 745

SECTION 3: EXISTING BICYCLE NETWORK
Overview: Issues and Opportunities
Currently, American Canyon’s bicycle
network consists Class I shared-use
paths, for example a segment of the
Bay Trail adjacent to Wetlands Edge
Road (see Figure AC.2), and Class II
bike lanes, for example, along
American Canyon Road.

American Canyon has limited onstreet bike facilities. Bike lanes (Class II) exist on only several of the city’s
roadways, and existing bike lanes
are typically disconnected from one
another, do not provide citywide
connectivity or access to major
destinations, and are striped in short
segments less than one mile in
length. Generally, due to the low traffic volumes and speeds, many local streets are comfortable for bicycling, even without bicycle facilities or signage. Connections to destinations, such as businesses located on SR 29 and schools, could be improved to provide more connectivity. Figure AC.3 illustrates the existing bicycle network, and Table AC.2 provides an overview of the existing bikeway mileage in American Canyon.

Table AC.2. Existing Bicycle Network Mileage
Facility Type Existing Mileage
Vine Trail (Class I) 2.4
Shared-Use Path (Class I) 7.3
Bike Lane (Class II) 1.6
Bike Route (Class III) 1.8
TOTAL 13.1
Figure AC.3. Bay Trail along Wetlands Edge Road
746

Figure AC.4. Existing Bicycle Facilities in American Canyon 747

Components of the Bicycle Network
Multiple bicycle facility types comprise a complete bicycle network, and each facility type has a different classification to distinguish the facilities. The classifications are based on the degree of physical separation from vehicle traffic. The following facility types reflect the existing bikeways as well as new ones identified in this Plan.

Shared-Use Paths
Shared-Use Path (Class I) are two-way paved facilities, physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and used by bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized users.

Shared-use paths are often located in an independent
alignment, such as a greenway, though sometimes they
are located adjacent to roadway. Shared-use paths
provide low-stress facilities for bicyclists. Examples of shared-use paths in American Canyon include:
• Segments of the Vine Trail - The Vine Trail is a 47-
mile active transportation corridor that is under
development and will connect the Vallejo Ferry
Terminal in southern Solano County to Calistoga
in northern Napa County.
• Wetlands Edge Road Trail, part of the Bay Trail
(see Figure AC.4) - Parking and trailheads are
available at the Wetlands Edge Viewing Area
which offer trail options for recreational biking
and hiking.
• Several shared-use paths in parks and utility
rights-of-way.

Shared-use paths (Class I) in American Canyon are generally narrow, with width ranging from eight to 10 feet. Although some of these shared-use paths are substandard in width compared to best practices for Class I design, they provide neighborhood connections or cut-throughs to destinations. These segments are identified in this Plan since they are separated from automobile traffic and provide important desired connections within the bicycle network.38
The Vine Trail is a key active transportation corridor that is becoming the backbone of Napa County’s low-stress bicycle network. The completed Vine Trail will connect all Napa County jurisdictions as part of a 47-mile shared-use trail between the Vallejo Ferry Terminal and Calistoga. The Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition and NVTA are actively working on planning, design, and construction of trail segments throughout the county.

38 Eight feet is the typical recommended minimum for any shared-use path. Some small connector paths in the county are as narrow as four feet.

Figure AC.5. Wetlands Edge Trail, part of the Bay
Trail, in American Canyon
748

Bike Lanes
Bike Lane (Class II) provide an exclusive space for
bicyclists in the roadway and are established by
painting lines and symbols on the roadway surface.

Bike lanes are for one-way travel and are typically
provided in both directions on two-way streets
and/or on one side of a one-way street (see Figure
AC.5). Examples of bike lanes in American Canyon
include American Canyon Road, Elliott Drive, and
Benton Way.

Bike lanes create a lower-stress riding environment
on streets with a maximum posted speed limit of 30
miles per hour and traffic volumes between 3,000
and 8,000 vehicles per day. Many of the bicycle lanes
in Napa County are on roadways with higher speeds, such as American Canyon Road, which can result in a stressful bicycling environment for many bicyclists, including Interested but Concerned bicyclists. Some of these facilities are well used, however, by the many Napa County residents and visitors who are more comfortable with bicycling in high-speed environments.

Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) are implemented by
painting or otherwise creating a flush buffer zone
between a bicycle lane and the adjacent travel lane
(see Figure AC.6). While buffers are typically used
between bike lanes and motor vehicle travel lanes to
increase bicyclists’ comfort, they can also be installed between bicycle lanes and parking lanes to reduce
conflicts with opening car doors. When located on
streets with moderate traffic volumes and speeds,
buffered bike lanes provide a lower-stress riding
environment for bicyclists. No buffered bike lanes
exist today in American Canyon or elsewhere in Napa
County. Figure AC.7. Buffered bike lane in Seattle, WA
Figure AC.6. Bike lane on Benton Way in American Canyon 749

Bike Routes and Bicycle Boulevards
Bike Routes and Bicycle Boulevards are two types of Class III facilities in Napa County.

Bike routes are designated with pavement markings or signage to indicate a shared lane environment between bicyclists and drivers (see Figure AC.7, an example in nearby St. Helena). Examples of bike routes in American Canyon include American Canyon Road, Benton Way, Kimberly Drive, Elliot Drive, and Broadway Street (also SR 29).

While signage and markings support
wayfinding and indicate bicyclist positioning
on shared streets, bicycle routes do not
provide any protection or separation
between people driving and people
bicycling. When located on streets that
have high traffic speeds and/or volumes,
bike routes are uncomfortable and most
people will choose not to ride on them.

Bicycle boulevards are also indicated with
pavement markings and signage, but are
specifically located on low-speed, lowvolume streets, often in residential neighborhoods. Bicycle boulevards are
designed to prioritize bicycle throughtravel, while reducing motor vehicle through traffic volumes and maintaining relatively low speeds. When paired with intersection treatments that help bicyclists cross major intersections, bicycle boulevards are an attractive, low-stress facility. Currently, there are no bicycle boulevards in American Canyon.

Separated Bike Lanes
Separated Bike Lanes (Class IV) are an
exclusive bikeway facility type that combines
the user experience of a shared-use path
with the on-street elements of a
conventional bike lane (see Figure AC.8).

They are recommended for roadways with
speeds higher than 30 miles per hour and
motor vehicle volumes over approximately
6,500 vehicles per day. Separated bike lanes
are physically separated from motor vehicle
traffic with a vertical element and are distinct
from the sidewalk. They can be located at
street level within the curbs, at an Figure AC.9. Separated bike lane in Berkeley, CA Figure AC.8. Bike route in nearby St. Helena
750

intermediate level, or at sidewalk level, see Figure AC.9 below. Numerous options are available for creating separation between modes, ranging from low-cost paint and plastic flexpost installations, to more robust curb-separated lanes. Separated bike lanes provide a low-stress riding environment to all bicyclists. No separated bike lanes currently exist in American Canyon or elsewhere in Napa County.

Figure AC.10. Sidewalk level, intermediate level, and street level separated bike lanes, left to right.

How many people bike today?
Some residents within the municipalities and Napa County choose to bicycle to work, and data is readily available regarding residents’ commuting mode choice from the U.S. Census’ American Community Survey (ACS). In American Canyon, approximately 0.4 percent of residents commute by bicycle which is half of the county’s mode share of 0.8 percent. However, work-related trips only comprise 10 to 15 percent of all household trips; the remaining 85 to 90 percent of trips are made to visit friends and family or for errands, entertainment, outings, and recreation. 39 The assumption can be made that Napa County residents are generally more likely to bike for non-work trips. This is because non-work destinations, such as an errand or a friend’s house, are likely to be located closer to home.

39 Range references the National Household Travel Survey (15 percent) and California Household Travel Survey (9.9 percent).
751

Collision Analysis
Improving safety for bicyclists is an expressed goal of the 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan and preventing and mitigating bicycle collisions is a key consideration behind the network recommendations for American Canyon. Not only is safety and the reduction of bicycle collisions a public health issue, addressing safety concerns is also an important way to encourage more people to ride a bicycle.

Understanding collision factors and trends will allow the City to identify and prioritize investments that can have the greatest impact on improving safety for bicyclists and other users of the roadway.

To better understand collision history in American Canyon, injury crash data from 2006-2013 were reviewed.40 American Canyon has relatively few bicycle crashes reported during this seven-year period, and the crashes that occurred are geographically disbursed. That said, Broadway and American Canyon Road, combined, were the locations of seven of the city’s 18 crashes. In general, bicycle collisions in American Canyon were less severe (11 percent were severe, no fatalities), and were caused by either a broadside hit (33 percent) or an unidentified “Other” (22 percent). Collision factors were varied, with “Signals and Signs” and “Wrong Side of the Road” as the major identified reasons for the crash. See Figure AC.10 for a map of bicycle collisions.

The crashes that are mapped and analyzed only include those reported to police. There may be additional unreported crashes, and near misses, that have occurred during this time that influence people’s decision to ride a bike.

40 Collision data was gathered from the University of California-Berkeley’s Safe Transportation Research and Education Center’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). 752

Figure AC.11. Bicycle Crash Distribution (2006-2013)
753

Community Input
Residents of American Canyon were invited to be an active part of the planning process through inperson and online outreach activities hosted by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA). The community feedback directly informs the Plan’s network and programmatic recommendations. For more information about outreach, see Chapter 2 of the 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan.

From July to October 2017, residents were invited to share their site-specific comments on the existing network and potential improvements through an online, interactive WikiMap. Respondents were asked to provide feedback on:
• Barriers to biking
• Places/routes where I currently ride a bike
• Places/routes where I would like to ride
Six respondents contributed a total of ten comments within American Canyon. Highlights include:
• It is unsafe and uncomfortable to ride a bike in American Canyon due to the lack of comfortable bike facilities and challenging roadway crossings.
• SR 29 and American Canyon road were identified as barriers. • Trails such as the Tuscan Oak Trail are too narrow for bicyclists to use; they should be widened or on-street facilities should be provided.

The location of WikiMap comments in American Canyon can be found in Appendix B.

In addition to the initial WikiMap, NVTA also hosted an online map from June to July 2018, for residents to review the recommended bicycle network facilities. This map showed draft recommended bike facilities throughout the county and allowed users to agree or disagree that the recommendation was appropriate in that location. Over 50 respondents provided approximately 330 comments which were reviewed by staff in each jurisdiction for possible changes to the recommended network.

American Canyon was also represented through involvement in committees and through direct outreach to City staff by NVTA throughout the development of this plan. 754

SECTION 4: PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK
The main purpose of this plan is to identify a future bicycle network for American Canyon that is safe and connected. The proposed bicycle network map (see Figure AC.11) was developed based on fieldwork, an analysis of existing conditions, input from the community and City staff, in consideration of best practices in bicycle network planning, and facility guidance from Appendix A: Bicycle Facilities Toolkit.

The resulting network includes high-quality infrastructure in the form of shared-use paths, separated bike lanes, bike lanes, bike boulevards, and bike routes. These facilities connect to key community destinations and neighborhoods and close network gaps. The network also provides connections beyond the American Canyon city boundary into the unincorporated areas.

American Canyon’s proposed bicycle network is a 24.1-mile network, as detailed in Table AC.3. When implemented, the existing and proposed facilities will create a 37.2-mile network.

Table AC.3. Proposed Bicycle Network
Facility Proposed Mileage Existing Mileage Total Future Mileage Vine Trail (Class I) 2.8 2.4 5.2
Shared-Use Paths (Class I) 11.5 7.3 18.8
Bike Lanes (Class II) 6.5 1.6 8.1
Bike Boulevard (Class III) 1.6 - 1.6
Rural Bike Routes (Class III) 0.8 1.8 2.6
Separated Bike Lanes (Class IV) 0.9 - 0.9
Total Network 24.1 13.1 37.2
755

Figure AC.12. Proposed Bicycle Network
756

SECTION 5: SUPPORT PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
City policies and support programs are key components of a welcoming, bicycle-friendly community.

Generally, policies are set by the City government, while programs are led by or executed in partnership with external organizations or agencies such as advocacy organizations or school districts. Along with bike network investments, programs and policies will help American Canyon realize the Plan’s goals of connectivity, equity, safety, and education and encouragement.

American Canyon already has several programs related to bicycling which are described in Table AC.4.

The existing and recommend programs create a full suite of efforts to promote and support bicycling throughout American Canyon.

Table AC.4. Support Programs and Policies
Support
Program/Policy Description Source
Existing
Safe Routes to School
Program
Since 2010, this collaborative program, provided by the Napa County Office of Education in conjunction with the Napa Valley Bicycle Coalition, encourages students to walk and bike to school through education events, prizes, and safety projects.

Existing
Safety Education
The Napa County Bicycle Coalition organizes educational and promotional events to encourage safe bicycle riding in Napa County, such as bicycle safety rodeos and the annual BikeFest event in May. This can include educational programs for both children and adults.

Existing
Recommended
Bicycle Parking,
Shower, and Locker
Facilities
Provide short- and long-term bicycle parking at key destinations, such as parks, schools, community facilities, transit stops, and shopping areas. Encourage employers to install showers and locker facilities for bicycle commuters.
2012 American
Canyon Bicycle Plan
Capital Improvement
Projects / Complete
Streets Checklist
Create checklist for capital projects on and adjacent to streets (repaving, restriping, reconstruction) that ensures City staff review the infrastructure recommendations of this Plan at the time of project development
2019 Bicycle Plan
Dedicated Bicycle
Staff
Identify a staff member who is responsible for bicycle planning and the implementation of bicycle facilities and dedicate a percentage of their time to these efforts.
2019 Bicycle Plan
Existing Bikeways
Policy
Develop a policy which specifies that existing bikeways should not be removed, unless an improved bikeway is being installed. 2019 Bicycle Plan Law Enforcement
Activities
Coordinate with law enforcement agencies and improve
officers’ understanding of bicycling issues, which will lead to better enforcement, heightened awareness of safety issues, and recognition of “teachable moments” for both bicyclists and motorists.
2012 American
Canyon Bicycle Plan
Provide bicycle-specific training for law enforcement personnel and establish a community policing agreement which engages members of the community, including agency engineering and planning staff, local elected officials, non-profit community advocates, schools, and others, to ensure the coordination of enforcement goals and strategies, and to develop a balanced 2019 Bicycle Plan
757

Support
Program/Policy Description Source
approach to address traffic safety issues that includes education, engineering, and enforcement.

Establish a bicycle diversion program for bicycle traffic offenders.

Provide focused law enforcement operations at high collision locations.

Maintain Overgrown
Vegetation
Continue to ensure citywide that landscapes at maturity do not interfere with safe sight distances for bicycle, pedestrian, or vehicular traffic; do not conflict with overhead lights, traffic controls, traffic signage, utility lines or poles, or walkway lights; and, do not block bicycle or pedestrian ways. Develop ordinance to encourage adjacent property owners to maintain landscaped areas with live and healthy plant materials, replace plant materials when necessary to maintain full function and
aesthetics; to water, weed, prune, fertilize and keep sidewalks and planting strips litter free.
2016 Napa
Countywide
Pedestrian Plan
Site Plan Review
Checklist
Create checklist for development review to ensure site plans include considerations for bicycle access and safety. Include items from MTC’s Routine Accommodation Checklist for
projects in the public right-of-way to ensure routine application of the Complete Streets policy. MTC’s checklist can be found here:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/
bicyclespedestrians/Routine_Accommodation_checklist.pdf 2016 Napa
Countywide
Pedestrian Plan
Vision Zero Policy
Adopt a countywide Vision Zero policy and develop an action plan for implementing Vision Zero. Identify opportunities for funding for Vision Zero efforts, such as developing a Countywide database to inventory collision data and environmental factors, undertaking a comprehensive analysis to understand collision patterns, and facilitating an outreach process to identify community safety priorities and determine where to focus safety investments and improvements.
2019 Bicycle Plan
Wayfinding Program
Develop a regional wayfinding system that has a similar brand throughout Napa Valley and helps bicyclists navigate the transportation network with confidence and provide direction to their destinations; create a community identity; and build a sense of place. The City of American Canyon could adjust the brand to reflect local character while still maintaining signage elements for consistency including placement, frequency of signs, and content.
2019 Bicycle Plan
Bikeway
Maintenance
Prioritize maintenance of roadways and removal of debris where bicycle facilities are present 2019 Bicycle Plan
758

SECTION 6: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Because all communities, including American Canyon, have limited financial resources, it is not possible to implement all the recommended projects immediately. To focus American Canyon’s resources, several characteristics of projects should be considered. These characteristics are discussed in relation to implementation phases below.

Immediate-Term
Overlap with Measure T Repaving Projects
While the connectedness of a bicycle network is highly important, recommended projects should be implemented as opportunities arise for integration into existing projects. American Canyon’s five-year paving plan funded by Measure T offers a great opportunity for quickly implementing several recommended bicycle facilities. American Canyon’s Measure T plans have been compared to the proposed bicycle network, and those projects are noted in Table AC.5.

Short- and Medium-Term
Facility Characteristics
All other planned street resurfacing and reconstruction projects should be reviewed against the recommended bike network. Another early step in the implementation of the bicycle plan should be to answer the following questions about each project:
• Does a facility consist only of striping and signage that can be added at any time? • Does a facility necessitate further community dialog regarding reallocation of street space? • Does a project need significant funding that must be obtained through a competitive process (i.e., grant)?
• Does a project necessitate acquiring additional right-of-way? • Are there any environmental concerns about a project location? These questions can help direct staff to understand which projects are more readily implementable.

Proximity to Destinations
Public input received over the course of this Plan process indicates greater interest in connecting to certain destinations including: schools, parks, trailheads, and community centers. The locations of these destinations, as well as other known bicycle traffic generators such as hotels with bike rental schemes should be considered when selecting projects for earlier implementation.

Public Concerns
Residents gave input through the WikiMap about areas of greater concern for bicyclists. These are documented in the summary above, and staff may wish to refer to these comments when considering which projects to implement first. Staff should also continue to collect and document resident concerns and priorities about bicycling and general traffic safety in American Canyon and bring those comments into discussions regarding implementation priorities.
759

Network Connectivity
Staff should consider the benefits provided by a connected bicycle network. Research has shown that a connected low-stress network has the greatest impact on encouraging people to choose to bicycle.

Projects that connect to existing facilities, especially ones that are known to be popular, may be prioritized. This should be balanced against the desire to provide bicycle facilities in and connecting to underserved communities in keeping with the equity goal of this Plan. Often, these areas have been historically underserved by infrastructure, and building new bike network projects here may not connect to existing facilities.

Long-Term
Some projects, such as many shared-use paths (Class I), will necessarily require a more sustained effort to come to fruition. While it may take a longer time to implement these projects, jurisdictions should begin to consider the steps toward construction of these projects so they are prepared for grant applications or inserting funding into capital improvement plans and inclusion of shared-use path (Class I) projects under the 6.67% equivalent funds collective requirement.

Connectivity Improvements from Phased Implementation
As stated, the planned bicycle facilities for American Canyon are intended to create the most low-stress network that conditions allow. Implementation of on-street facilities such as bike boulevards (Class III) and bike lanes (Class II) will significantly improve the connectivity of the bicycle network for riders of all ages and abilities. Focusing first on intersection treatments at locations where these facilities cross highspeed, high-volume streets without a traffic signal will most quickly improve connectivity.

While shared-use paths (Class I facilities) certainly provide a low-stress riding environment, their implementation requires more investment and often more planning than on-street facilities. Within American Canyon, the construction of shared-use paths on either side of Broadway will create significant connectivity improvements. These are understood to be a large, long-term capital investments, however, so implementation of on-street facilities in the meantime will provide great benefits to the city.

Funding
Funding for the bicycle network projects can come from different sources. For example, the City of American Canyon could fund the improvements through dedicated funds from the City, by leveraging development-driven projects, or through grant opportunities. More information about available grant funds can be found in Chapter 4 of the 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan. 760

Table AC.5. Project List for City of American Canyon
Project
ID Street/Trail Name Begin End Facility Type Length (Miles) Measure T Overlap Projects
Bike Lane (Class II) Projects
740 Danrose Dr Marla Dr W American Canyon Rd Bike Lane (Class II) 0.68 212 Donaldson Wy Elliot Dr/Donaldson Wy Eucalyptus Dr Bike Lane (Class II) 0.81 803* Elliot Dr City Limit Knightsbridge Wy Bike Lane (Class II) 0.47 227 Kimberly Dr Elliot Dr Meadow Bay Dr Bike Lane (Class II) 0.24 207 Theresa Ave Napa Junction Rd Eucalyptus Dr Bike Lane (Class II) 0.30 Bike Boulevard (Class III) Projects
831 Gisela Dr Donaldson Wy Rio Del Mar Bike Boulevard (Class III) 0.15 221* James Rd Wilson Wy American Canyon Rd Bike Boulevard (Class III) 0.51 Bike Route (Class III) Projects
732* Green Island Rd Bay Trail Commerce Rd Bike Route (Class III) 0.84 All Other Projects
Shared-Use Path (Class I) Projects
210 Bay Area Ridge Trail -
Eucalyptus Dr Wetlands Edge Rd Main St Shared-Use Path (Class I) 1.04 845 Bay Area Ridge Trail - S
Napa Junction Rd Main St Vine Trail (Newell Dr extension) Shared-Use Path (Class I) 0.62 228 Bay Trail (Kimberly
Area Segment) Kimberly Dr Kensington Wy Shared-Use Path (Class I) 0.32 225 Cartagena-Via Bellagio
Connector Path 150' E of Entrada Circle Flosden Rd Shared-Use Path (Class I) 0.40 805 Commerce Blvd Eucalyptus Dr Clarke Ranch Park Shared-Use Path (Class I) 0.27 735 Green Island Rd Vine Trail Commerce Blvd Shared-Use Path (Class I) 0.33 204 Hess Rd Commerce Rd Lombard Rd Shared-Use Path (Class I) 0.83 864 River Trail Vine Trail Newell Open Space Shared-Use Path (Class I) 1.06 909 S Kelly Rd SR 29 Devlin Rd Shared-Use Path (Class I) 0.20 203 SR 29 North city limit at SR 29 American Canyon Rd Shared-Use Path (Class I) 1.15 843 SR 29 North city limit at SR 29 American Canyon Rd Shared-Use Path (Class I) 5.21 730 SR 29 connector River to Ridge Trail SR 29 Shared-Use Path (Class I) 0.06 879 Broadway Veterans Park American Canyon Rd Shared-Use Path - Vine Trail (Class I) 0.17
761

Project
ID Street/Trail Name Begin End Facility Type Length (Miles) 899 Vine Trail (along Devlin
Rd) Middleton Way Watson Ln Shared-Use Path - Vine Trail (Class I) 1.62 868 Vine Trail (Newell Rd
Extension)
Donaldson Way
(Southern Intersection
of proposed Vine and
Ridge Trails)
Paoli Rd Shared-Use Path - Vine Trail
(Class I) 1.06
Separated Bike Lane (Class IV) Project
222 American Canyon Rd Wetlands Edge Rd SR 29 Separated Bike Lane (Class IV) 0.85
Bike Lane (Class II) Projects
223 American Canyon Rd Newell Dr I-80 Bike Lane (Class II) 0.42 736 Commerce Blvd Clarke Ranch Park Green Island Rd Bike Lane (Class II) 0.74 209 Donaldson Wy Andrew Rd Newell Dr Bike Lane (Class II) 0.30 733 Green Island Rd
Northern intersection
of Green Island Rd and
Mezzetta Ct
Vine Trail (Class I
facility intersecting at
Green Island Rd 300' W
of RR tracks)
Bike Lane (Class II) 0.25
737 Hanna St Commerce Blvd terminus Bike Lane (Class II) 0.37 205 Lombard Rd proposed Vine Trail Napa Junction Rd Bike Lane (Class II) 0.34 734 Mezzetta Ct Green Island Rd end of street Bike Lane (Class II) 0.20 729 Napa Junction Rd Theresa Ave future path Bike Lane (Class II) 0.37 830 Rio Del Mar Bay Trail, Near
Wetlands Edge Rd SR 29 (Broadway) Bike Lane (Class II) 1.00 Bike Boulevard (Class III) Projects
844 Main St Eucalyptus Dr Bay Area Ridge Trail (S
Napa Junction Rd) Bike Boulevard (Class III) 0.25
215 Cassayre Dr Melvin Rd Rio Del Mar Bike Boulevard (Class III) 0.15 218 Los Altos Dr Theresa Ave Rio del Mar Bike Boulevard (Class III) 0.10 216 Melvin Rd James Rd Cassayre Dr Bike Boulevard (Class III) 0.35 220 Melvin Rd James Rd Rio Del Mar Bike Boulevard (Class III) 0.05 217 Theresa Ave Eucayptus Dr Los Altos Dr Bike Boulevard (Class III) 0.03 * Projects denoted with an asterisk overlap with a jurisdiction-identified Measure T project, but they do not have the same extents: the proposed bicycle network project is either longer or shorter than the Measure T project. 762

763
Napa Countywide
Pedestrian Plan
August 2016
General Plan Appendix 4-2
764
This page intentionally left blank.
765

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
NVTA Board Peter White, City of St. Helena
Mary Luros, City of Napa
John F. Dunbar, Town of Yountville
Keith Caldwell, County of Napa
Mark Luce, County of Napa
Jill Techel, City of Napa
Leon Garcia, City of American Canyon
Belia Ramos, City of American Canyon
Chris Canning, City of Calistoga
James Barnes, City of Calistoga
Alan Galbraith, City of St. Helena
Richard Hall, Town of Yountville
Beth Kahiga, Paratransit Coordinating Council
NVTA Technical Advisory Committee Rick Marshall, County of Napa Nathan Steele, Town of Yountville
Jason Holley, City of American Canyon
Mike Kirn, City of Calistoga
Brent Cooper, City of American Canyon
Cheryl Braulik, City of American Canyon
Rick Tooker, City of Napa
Steve Palmer, City of St. Helena
Dana Ayers, County of Napa
Doug Weir, Paratransit Coordinating Council
Lorien Clark, City of Napa
Eric Whan, City of Napa
Joe Tagliaboschi, Town of Yountville
Steve Lederer, County of Napa
John McDowell, County of Napa
Erik Lundquist, City of Calistoga
Steven Rogers, Town of Yountville
Ahmad Rahimi, Caltrans
Ursula Vogler, MTC
Safe Routes to School Staff Kaycee Wanlass
NVTA Active Transportation Advisory Committee Barry Christian Dieter Deiss
Donna Hinds
Eric Hagyard
Frances Knapczyck
James Eales
Joel King
Michael Costanzo
City of American Canyon Cheryl Braulik, Senior Civil Engineer 766
Jason Holley, Public Works Director
Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
City of Napa Lorien Clark, Transportation Planner
Julie Lucido, Senior Civil Engineer
Eric Whan, Deputy Director of Public Works
Michael Walker, Senior Planner
County of Napa Rick Marshall, Deputy Public Works Director Town of Yountville Nathan Steele, Management Analyst
Joe Tagliaboschi, Public Works Director
Debra Hight, Deputy Public Works Director
Steve Rogers, Town Manager
Sandra Liston, Planning & Building Director
City of St. Helena Steve Palmer, Director of Public Works Aaron Hecock, Planning
Alan Galbraith, Mayor
City of Calistoga Erik Lundquist, Senior Planner
Mike Kirn, Public Works Director
Chris Canning, Mayor
Dieter Deiss, Active Transportation Advisory Committee
NVTA Staff Danielle Schmitz, Manager of Planning
Diana Meehan, Active Transportation Coordinator
Alberto Esqueda, Associate Program Planner
Caltrans Sergio Ruiz, Pedestrian & Bicycle Planning/Coordination Branch Chief Nick Smith, Transportation Planner
Consultants
767
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1. COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 Plan Oversight, Guidance, and Public Involvement .................................................................................. 3 Countywide Vision and Goals ................................................................................................................... 3 Vision Statement ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Goals and Policies ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Countywide Walking Trends .................................................................................................................... 5 County Mode Split and Travel Patterns ................................................................................................... 8 Forecasted Pedestrian Demand .............................................................................................................10 Collision Trends ......................................................................................................................................11 Community Input ...................................................................................................................................16 Individual Jurisdictions ...........................................................................................................................18 CHAPTER 2 CALISTOGA PLAN ........................................................................................................... 1 Existing Pedestrian Policies and Programs ............................................................................................... 1 Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 8 Activity Levels .........................................................................................................................................10 Collision Analysis ....................................................................................................................................12 Public and Stakeholder Input ................................................................................................................. 15 Countywide Outreach ............................................................................................................................15 Calistoga-Specific Focus Groups .............................................................................................................18 Opportunity Areas ................................................................................................................................. 18 Ped INDEX...............................................................................................................................................18 Priority Project and Implementation Plan .............................................................................................. 21 Walking Audits .......................................................................................................................................21 Project List and Map ..............................................................................................................................21 Priority Projects ......................................................................................................................................23 Supporting Programs and Policies .......................................................................................................... 27 Next Steps .............................................................................................................................................. 30 Funding Sources .....................................................................................................................................30 Countywide Performance Metrics and Evaluation ................................................................................32 Calistoga Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 33 CHAPTER 3 ST. HELENA PLAN .......................................................................................................... 1 Pedestrian Setting .................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Policies and Programs ................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 6 768
Activity Levels ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Collision Analysis ....................................................................................................................................12 Public and Stakeholder Input ................................................................................................................. 15 Countywide Outreach ............................................................................................................................15 St Helena-Specific Focus Groups ............................................................................................................19 Perceived Barriers ..................................................................................................................................19 Opportunity Areas ................................................................................................................................. 21 Ped INDEX...............................................................................................................................................21 Priority Project and Implementation Plan .............................................................................................. 24 Walking Audits .......................................................................................................................................24 Project List and Map ..............................................................................................................................24 Priority Projects ......................................................................................................................................26 Supporting Programs and Policies ..........................................................................................................30 Next Steps .............................................................................................................................................. 33 Funding Sources .....................................................................................................................................33 Countywide Performance Metrics and Evaluation ................................................................................35 St. Helena Appendix ............................................................................................................................... 36 CHAPTER 4 YOUNTVILLE PLAN ........................................................................................................ 1 Pedestrian Setting .................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Policies and Programs ................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 7 Activity Levels ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Collision Analysis ....................................................................................................................................10 Public and Stakeholder Input ................................................................................................................. 13 Countywide Outreach ............................................................................................................................13 Yountville-Specific Focus Groups ...........................................................................................................17 Perceived Barriers ..................................................................................................................................17 Opportunity Areas ................................................................................................................................. 19 Ped INDEX...............................................................................................................................................19 Priority Projects and Implementation Plan............................................................................................. 22 Walking Audits .......................................................................................................................................22 Project List and Map ..............................................................................................................................22 Priority Projects ......................................................................................................................................24 Supporting Programs and Policies ..........................................................................................................28 Next Steps .............................................................................................................................................. 31 Funding Sources .....................................................................................................................................31 Countywide Performance Metrics and Evaluation ................................................................................33 Yountville Appendix ............................................................................................................................... 34 769
CHAPTER 5 NAPA PLAN ....................................................................................................................... 1 Pedestrian Setting .................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Policies and Programs ................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 7 Napa Inventory ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Activity Levels ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Collision Analysis ....................................................................................................................................20 Public and Stakeholder Input ................................................................................................................. 23 Countywide Outreach ............................................................................................................................23 Napa-Specific Focus Groups ...................................................................................................................27 Perceived barriers ..................................................................................................................................27 Opportunity Areas ................................................................................................................................. 29 Ped INDEX...............................................................................................................................................29 Project Development and Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 35 Walking Audits .......................................................................................................................................35 Project List and Map ..............................................................................................................................35 Project Benefits ......................................................................................................................................38 Supporting Programs and Policies ..........................................................................................................43 Next Steps .............................................................................................................................................. 45 Funding Sources .....................................................................................................................................45 Countywide Performance Metrics and Evaluation ................................................................................47 Napa Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 48 CHAPTER 6 AMERICAN CANYON PLAN .......................................................................................... 1 Pedestrian Setting .................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Policies and Programs ................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 7 Activity Levels ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Collision Analysis ....................................................................................................................................11 Public and Stakeholder Input ................................................................................................................. 14 Countywide Outreach ............................................................................................................................14 American Canyon-Specific Focus Groups ...............................................................................................18 Perceived Barriers ..................................................................................................................................18 Opportunity Areas ................................................................................................................................. 20 Ped INDEX...............................................................................................................................................20 2016 ADA Transition Plan Update ..........................................................................................................21 Priority Projects and Implementation Plan............................................................................................. 23 Walking Audits .......................................................................................................................................23 Project List and Map ..............................................................................................................................23 770
Priority Projects ......................................................................................................................................25 Supporting Programs and Policies ..........................................................................................................29 Next Steps .............................................................................................................................................. 31 Funding Sources .....................................................................................................................................31 Countywide Performance Metrics and Evaluation ................................................................................33 American Canyon Appendix ................................................................................................................... 34 CHAPTER 7 UNINCORPORATED PLAN ........................................................................................... 1 Pedestrian Setting .................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Policies and Programs ................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 7 Activity Levels .........................................................................................................................................10 Collision Analysis ....................................................................................................................................10 Public and Stakeholder Input ................................................................................................................. 13 Countywide Outreach ............................................................................................................................13 Unincorporated County-Specific Focus Groups .....................................................................................17 Potential Barriers ...................................................................................................................................17 Opportunity Areas ................................................................................................................................. 19 Ped INDEX...............................................................................................................................................19 Priority Projects and Implementation Plan............................................................................................. 22 Walking Audits .......................................................................................................................................22 Project List and Map ..............................................................................................................................22 Priority Projects ......................................................................................................................................24 Supporting Programs and Policies ..........................................................................................................28 Next Steps .............................................................................................................................................. 30 Funding Sources .....................................................................................................................................30 Countywide Performance Metrics and Evaluation ................................................................................32 Unincorporated County Appendix .......................................................................................................... 33 CHAPTER 8 COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION .........................................................................19 Support Programs .................................................................................................................................. 19 Safe Routes To School (SRTS) .................................................................................................................20 Countywide Count Evaluation Program ................................................................................................. 22 Vision Zero..............................................................................................................................................25 Performance Goals ................................................................................................................................. 26 Plan Consistency .................................................................................................................................... 28 Federal Policies ......................................................................................................................................28 State Policies..........................................................................................................................................29 Regional and County Policies and Connections .....................................................................................30 771
Local Plans ..............................................................................................................................................33 APPENDIX A – PUBLIC WORKSHOP MATERIALS ........................................................................ 1 January 22, 2015 - NVTA .......................................................................................................................... 1 January 27, 2015 – Yountville Town Hall.................................................................................................. 4 February 4, 2015 – American Canyon City Hall ........................................................................................ 6 APPENDIX B – PED INDEX METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 1 APPENDIX C – GRANT FUNDING SOURCE ..................................................................................... 1 APPENDIX D – BEST PRACTICES TOOLKIT................................................................................... 1 Creating a Walkable Network .................................................................................................................. 1 The Pedestrian Realm .............................................................................................................................. 2 Accessibility .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Additional Treatment Guidelines ............................................................................................................. 7 Crosswalk Guidelines ............................................................................................................................. 17 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................17 Crosswalk Fundamentals ........................................................................................................................ 18 Types of Crosswalks ...............................................................................................................................18 Where Is Crossing the Street Legal? .......................................................................................................18 Why Mark Crosswalks? ..........................................................................................................................19 Steps to Identify Candidate Locations for Marked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations ....................20 Uncontrolled Crossing Enhancement Toolbox ........................................................................................ 23 Crosswalk Safety Research .....................................................................................................................23 Treatment Selection ............................................................................................................................... 26 Treatment Options ................................................................................................................................. 27 Controlled Crosswalk Treatment Toolbox .............................................................................................. 43 Universal Considerations ....................................................................................................................... 43 Signalized Crossing Enhancements ........................................................................................................44 Flow Chart Footnotes .............................................................................................................................49 772
This page intentionally left blank.
773
Countywide Introduction
CHAPTER 1
774
This page intentionally left blank.
775

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
1 Chapter 1.

Countywide Introduction
The Napa Countywide Pedestrian Plan is intended to guide and inform pedestrian infrastructure, policies, programs, and development standards to make walking in Napa County safe, comfortable, convenient and enjoyable for all pedestrians. It strives to improve accessibility for the disabled but does not intend to replace existing ADA Transition Plans.

The Napa Countywide Pedestrian Plan is being developed to complement existing planning documents for all Napa County jurisdictions, and ultimately be combined with the Countywide Bicycle Plan (NVTA, January 2012) to create a Countywide Active Transportation Plan that will allow and position the County to effectively compete for project funding. This plan follows the 2015 Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) Guidelines, which outline statewide requirements for what should be included in active transportation plans. The specific requirements from the 2015 ATP Guidelines are listed below in Table 1 along with the relevant location in this plan. 776

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
2 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE 1: 2015 CALTRANS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

GUIDELINES - REQUIRED PLAN COMPONENTS
Active Transportation Plan Requirement Location in this Plan The estimated number of existing bicycle trips and pedestrian trips in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all trips, and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle trips and pedestrian trips resulting from implementation of the plan Chapter 1, Countywide
Walking Trends
The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suffered by bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all collisions and injuries, and a goal for collision, serious injury, and fatality reduction after implementation of the plan Chapter 1, Countywide
Walking Trends
A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which must include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, major employment centers, and other destinations.

Chapters 2-7*,
Pedestrian Setting
A map and description of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities, including those at major transit hubs and those that serve public and private schools and, if appropriate, a description of how the five E’s (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation) will be used to increase rates of walking to school. Major transit hubs must include, but are not limited to, rail and transit terminals, and ferry docks and landings.

Chapters 2-7*, Priority
Projects and
Implementation Plan
Chapter 8, Support
Programs
A description of proposed signage providing wayfinding along bicycle and pedestrian networks to designated destinations Appendix D
A description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, ADA level surfaces, freedom from encroaching vegetation, maintenance of traffic control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and lighting.

Chapters 2-7*, Priority
Projects and
Implementation Plan
A description of bicycle and pedestrian safety, education, and encouragement programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the law impacting bicycle and pedestrian safety, and the resulting effect on collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians.

Chapters 2-7*,
Pedestrian Setting
A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the plan, including disadvantaged and underserved communities
Chapters 2-7*, Public
and Stakeholder Input
A description of how the active transportation plan has been coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions, including school districts within the plan area, and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, general plans and a Sustainable Community Strategy in a Regional Transportation Plan.

Chapter 8, Plan
Consistency
A description of the projects and programs proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation, including the methodology for project prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation.

Chapters 2-7*, Priority
Projects and
Implementation Plan
A description of past expenditures for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, and future financial needs for projects and programs that improve safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area. Include anticipated revenue sources and potential grant funding for bicycle and pedestrian uses.

Chapters 2-7*, Next
Steps
A description of steps necessary to implement the plan and the reporting process that will be used to keep the adopting agency and community informed of the progress being made in implementing the plan.

Chapter 8,
Performance Goals
A resolution showing adoption of the plan by the city, county or district. If the active transportation plan was prepared by a county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district or transit district, the plan should indicate the support via resolution of the city(s) or county(s) in which the proposed facilities would be located Chapters 2-7*,
Appendix E
*Chapters 2-7 are individual jurisdiction plans; this information can be found in each jurisdiction plan under the noted section. 777

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
3 Plan Oversight, Guidance, and Public Involvement
Several groups were involved in guiding the development of the Plan. Those groups and their role in the planning process are listed below:
 Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) – lead agency  NVTA Active Transportation Advisory Committee (ATAC) / NVTA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - provide guidance and recommendations at key milestones to discuss project progress and topics of countywide significance such as plan vision, prioritization criteria and overall consistency  Individual Jurisdiction Focus Groups – steering committees consisting of local staff and stakeholders to discuss existing conditions and practices; identify key issues and opportunities; provide input on priority study areas; develop improvement project concepts for focus areas; determine prioritization and implementation planning for project lists; and propose key program and policy recommendations  Public/Stakeholders – provide input on the locations of key issues and opportunities in each jurisdiction, the vision and goals of the plan, at workshops and via online mapping; participate as key stakeholders in walking audits and the review of improvement concepts for focus areas Countywide Vision and Goals
The countywide vision and goals for this plan are intended to guide pedestrian planning in the region. Input was received from the Jurisdiction Focus Groups and the community during the public workshops and incorporated into the following vision and goals.

Vision Statement
To provide a pedestrian network that is well connected, safe, and enjoyable for Napa County residents and visitors of all levels of mobility. This plan aims to increase the number of pedestrian trips countywide and to set the groundwork for a shift in travel mode choice such that non-motorized options are widely available, accessible, and convenient. Through implementation of this plan and future updates, all Napa County residents, regardless of age or income level, should have easy walking access to their community and the services and amenities that it offers.

Goals and Policies
The following goals and policies support the overall vision for the plan:

Goal 1: Provide a connected network of pedestrian sidewalks, trails, and pathways in the County and its jurisdictions that are safe and accessible to a variety of users and that foster community interactions
Policy 1A: Protect the character and context of the County and its jurisdictions 778

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
4 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Policy 1B: Prioritize safe routes to schools, safe routes to transit, and safe routes for seniors within the County
Policy 1C: Acknowledge the central role that the Vine Trail plays in active transportation infrastructure and prioritize connections between the trail and key destinations Policy 1D: Work to reduce the rate of pedestrian collisions Policy 1E: Connect key pedestrian desire lines via accessible sidewalks and marked crosswalks, focusing on downtown areas, transit stops, schools, senior housing and destinations, and tourist destinations and lodging
Goal 2: Encourage a multimodal transportation system
Policy 2A: Adhere to the current design standards in this plan as well as local design standards and other national and state manuals when designing new or retrofitted streets and communities Policy 2B: Investigate the use of performance measures such as multi-modal level of service or built environment factors to facilitate complete streets implementation Policy 2C: Prioritize infrastructure projects that will increase the walk mode share, while also taking advantage of all available funding opportunities to construct pedestrian infrastructure, including private development with an appropriate nexus
Policy 2D: Investigate creative parking measures such as shared parking, parking maximums, and strategic parking locations to encourage a “park once” environment in commercial districts Policy 2E: Review new development proposals to ensure pedestrian access and circulation is maintained or improved, including during construction phases
Goal 3: Obtain funding for pedestrian projects
Policy 3A: Continue to allocate Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funding to pedestrian projects Policy 3B: Pursue grant funding related to pedestrian projects Policy 3C: Identify new funding sources and partnership opportunities, such as those focusing on public health and sustainability
Goal 4: Encourage and educate residents about walking and enforce safe interactions between pedestrians and motorists
Policy 4A: Increase public awareness of pedestrian facilities, amenities, and safety Policy 4B: Pursue recognition such as Walk-Friendly Community status 779

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
5 Policy 4C: Implement ongoing pedestrian safety enforcement programs and campaigns Policy 4D: Partner with local health agencies to encourage more activity among youth through the built environment to target childhood obesity
Policy 4E: Collaborate with local businesses to enhance wayfinding and streetscape amenities Countywide Walking Trends
Napa County is a scenic and historic Bay Area destination that thrives on year-round visitors and its grape vineyards. Located in the North Bay region with the majority of development along SR 29, Napa County is a predominantly rural community with regional access provided by the surrounding highway network. The County is bordered by Sonoma County to the west, Solano and Yolo Counties to the east, and Lake County to the north, as shown in Exhibit 1. The County includes the cities of American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, and St. Helena; the Town of Yountville; and unincorporated areas.

With historic commercial districts and vital community assets such as open space and trails, the five incorporated jurisdictions accommodate pedestrians in a variety of ways. The various downtown areas offer corridors of shopping and dining destinations that are contributors to the pedestrian environment in the County, and many provide a system of sidewalks and plazas that make the downtown districts pleasant and interesting places to Calistoga: Washington Street
780

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
6 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
walk. Residential neighborhoods in the County are typically pleasant places to walk, with some roadways having sidewalks and others having a more rural character.

The unincorporated areas of the County have a predominantly rural character and development is sporadic consisting mostly of residential areas, a few village centers and some institutional uses. Neighborhoods in the unincorporated County include Angwin, Berryessa Estates, Berryessa Highlands, Big Ranch Road, Coombsville, Deer Park, Lake Berryessa (Moskowite Corners, Pope Creek, and Spanish Flat), Silverado, and the South County Industrial Areas. These communities have limited pedestrian infrastructure; neighborhood streets typically do not have sidewalks, and few intersections currently have marked crosswalks.

Angwin: Howell Mountain Road
781
782

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
8 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
County Mode Split and Travel Patterns
A common term used in describing demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities is “mode split”. Mode split refers to the form of transportation a person chooses to take, such as walking, bicycling, public transit, or driving. Table 2 presents the California Household Travel Survey (CHTS, 2012) data on the percentage mode split for all persontrips in Napa County.

TABLE 2: NAPA COUNTY DAILY MODE SPLIT
Mode All Trips (2012)
1 Auto 306,598 (88%)
Pedestrian 62,091 (9%)
Bicycle 1,234 (1%)
Transit 2,575 (1%)
Other22,394 (1%)

1. Percent mode share for all person-trips in Napa County from the California Household Travel Survey (2012).

2. Includes motorcycle and air travel.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.

Walking is a common mode of transportation within the County’s developed communities. The incorporated regions of Napa County have history dating back to the 1800s, and their compact downtown business districts reflect this historic character, creating an inviting pedestrian environment. Neighborhoods located close to the downtown areas allow residents to easily travel on foot between the commercial and residential districts in the county’s incorporated regions. The unincorporated regions within Napa County, comprising the majority of its land area, are of a rural density and character. These regions offer fewer opportunities for pedestrian travel between destinations.

The Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP), Vision 2040, has a goal of shifting travel from single-occupancy vehicles to transit, walking, and bicycling, increasing mode share of all three by 10% by 2035. This plan proposes comfortable and accessible pedestrian improvements to attract new walking trips and increase the walking mode share to meet the goals of the CTP.

Understanding the mode of travel people choose and trip purpose can help jurisdictions develop effective and targeted programs to better serve residents and employees.

Trips of a distance less than one-half mile are typically considered viable for conversion to a walk trip, as it takes about 10 minutes to walk this distance. In Napa County, most commute trips are farther than this threshold, suggesting that a focus on non-commute trips (trips to school, for shopping, or for recreation, as well as visitor trips within commercial areas and hotel zones) will be important to support mode shift goals. Based on the 2010- 2012 California Household Travel Survey, 17% of daily trips in the County were one-half mile or less in distance. 783

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
9 Employees
Based on the California Household Travel Survey, about 70,300 workers are employed within Napa County. This total is comprised of 55,500 Napa County residents, and 14,800 workers who commute from outside Napa County.

The average commute distance for residents of Napa County is 9.6 miles, and the typical commute distance for employees in Napa County is 10.4 miles. As shown in Table 3, the Napa County residents’ commute mode share for walking is 4%, as compared to 9% walk mode share for all person trips.

TABLE 3: NAPA COUNTY RESIDENTS’ JOURNEY TO WORK
Mode
Employed Napa County Residents
Total Employees Percent of Total
Drove Alone 49,355 76.0%
Carpool 7,591 11.7%
Public Transportation 630 1.0%
Walked 2,785 4.3%
Bicycle 551 0.8%
Taxicab, motorcycle, other 426 0.7%
Worked At Home 3,538 5.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey Visitors
Visit Napa Valley conducted a year-long visitor profile study in 2012 to gather data on lodging guests, day-trip visitors, and visiting friends and relatives (VFRs) staying overnight in private homes. The research found that an estimated 2.9 million visitors came to Napa Valley in 2012 with the largest percentage (66%) being day-trip visitors.

As shown in Table 4, about 21% of the visitors that responded to the 2012 survey reported traveling within the Napa Valley area on foot during their stay. This suggests pedestrian improvements focused on tourist destinations and safety education messages targeted for tourists are important considerations in the County. 784

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
10 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE 4: VISITOR TRANSPORTATION PRIMARY MODE USED WITHIN NAPA VALLEY Mode Percent of All Napa Valley Visitors
Personal automobile 58.9%
Rental car 37.7%
Walk 20.9%
Limousine 4.8%
Bicycle 4.3%
Taxi 4.3%
Hotel Shuttle or courtesy vehicle 2.0%
Bus line 1.0%
Source: Visit Napa Valley, 2012 Napa Valley Visitor Profile Forecasted Pedestrian Demand
Based on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Plan Bay Area, the region plans to increase its bicycle, pedestrian, and transit mode shares by a total of 10% by 2040. This growth in alternative modes will be the result of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure improvements and programs in the coming decades. NVTA forecasts that alternative mode shares will grow by this same percent by 2040, and that this growth will be equally split among the three modes, as a result of implementation of project and program recommendations in this plan, the Napa County Bicycle Plan, and planned transit improvements.

To capture work, tourism, recreational, and shopping trips within Napa County, this estimate solely evaluates trips with an origin and destination point within Napa County. Using a baseline of 2012 (from the 2010-2012 California Household Travel Survey), there are 54,885 daily walking trips in Napa County, 12.2% of all intra-county trips. This mode share is expected to increase to 15.5% in 2040 (Table 5). 785

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
11 TABLE 5: DAILY TRIPS WITH ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS IN NAPA COUNTY Year 2012 2040
Population 136,6441163,6092
Mode Daily Trips3 Mode Share Daily Trips Mode Share4
Drive Alone 216,713 48.0% 229,464 42.5%
Drive Shared 168,114 37.2% 178,005 32.9%
Transit 2,953 0.7% 21,551 4.0%
Walk 54,885 12.2% 83,731 15.5%
Bike 3,323 0.7% 21,993 4.1%
Other 5,376 1.2% 5,693 1.1%
Total 451,365 100% 540,437 100%

1. Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey

2. Source: Vision 2040, Moving Napa Forward (2015)

3. Source: California Household Travel Survey (2010-2012)

4. Assumes a 3.3% increase in walk, bicycle, and transit mode shares. Drive alone, drive shared, and other trips are decreased by a total of 10%, each reduced proportional to 2012 mode share.

The population of Napa County is expected to increase by 27,000 people from 2012 to 2040. Based on an increase in both population and mode share, daily pedestrian trips in the County are forecast to grow to 83,731, a 53% increase.

Collision Trends
Collision data was accessed from the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrate Traffic Records System (SWITRS). This data represents all reported pedestrian-vehicle collisions occurring in Napa County during the tenyear period from January 2003 to December 2012. Table 6 summarizes the collision data by year and severity of collision. Fourteen fatalities were reported during the ten-year period. Nearly all of the reported collisions (96 percent) resulted in some form of injury.
786

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
12 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE 6: NAPA COUNTY PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE COLLISION SUMMARY (2003 – 2012) Year Pedestrian
Injuries
Proportion of
All County
Injuries1
Pedestrian
Fatalities
Proportion of
All County
Fatalities1
Total
Pedestrian
Collisions
Proportion of
All County
Collisions2
2003 37 2.6% 1 3.6% 1,466 2.6%
2004 32 2.3% 2 8.0% 1,398 2.4%
2005 25 1.9% 2 8.3% 1,312 2.1%
2006 34 2.6% 1 6.7% 1,340 2.6%
2007 24 2.2% 1 6.7% 1,100 2.3%
2008 34 3.1% 2 11.1% 1,118 3.2%
2009 40 4.2% 2 14.3% 948 4.4%
2010 28 3.2% 2 16.7% 894 3.4%
2011 25 2.8% 1 12.5% 893 2.9%
2012 23 2.4% 0 0.0% 949 2.4%
Total 302 2.7% 14 8.4% 11,418 2.8%
Source: SWITRS, TIMS
1 “All county injuries” and “all county fatalities” describe pedestrian injury and fatal collisions, respectively, as a percentage of all reported injury and fatal traffic collisions, respectively and regardless of mode, in Napa County during the study period.

2. Traffic collision total does not include collisions that did not result in injuries (e.g. “property damage only” collisions).

Minor collisions that involve pedestrians, whether with vehicles or bicycles, are generally underreported 1.

Additionally, collisions that occur on off-street paths and trails are not included in the SWITRS data.

Demographics
Children and seniors are two of the most vulnerable populations in the context of pedestrian-involved collisions. As shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below, pedestrian-involved collisions including children are the most common within the County and in American Canyon. Yountville has the highest percentage of collisions involving seniors.

Targeting safe routes to school and for seniors, respectively, may be of particular importance in these jurisdictions.

1 Sciortino, S., Vassar, M., Radetsky, M. and M. Knudson, “San Francisco Pedestrian Injury Surveillance: Mapping, Underreporting, and Injury Severity in Police and Hospital Records,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Volume 37, Issue 6, November 2005, Pages 1102-1113 787

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
13 Figure 1 Countywide Child-Involved Pedestrian Collisions Figure 2 Countywide Senior-Involved Pedestrian Collisions 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percentage of Victims under 18 in Pedestrian-Involved Collisions (2003-2012)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percentage of Victims over 55 in Pedestrian-Involved Collisions (2003-2012)
788

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
14 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Daily and Seasonal Trends
Collisions in the County peak Thursday through Saturday, at the same time that tourism levels are high, as shown in Figure 3. Similarly, collisions are higher in the Fall, during Crush season. The holiday season and perhaps also rainier/darker days in December and January contribute to the trend, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3 Daily Trends for Pedestrian-Involved Collisions Figure 4 Seasonal Trends for Pedestrian-Involved Collisions 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday % of Pedestrian-Involved Collisions
County of Napa: 2003 to 2012
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Month by Percent of Pedestrian-Involved Collisions:

Napa County (2003-2012)
789

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
15 Primary Collision Factors
Table 7 shows the most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) for pedestrian-involved collisions in Napa County.

TABLE 7: NAPA COUNTY PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED COLLISION SUMMARY PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS (2003-2012)
Primary Collision Factor
Number of Collisions
Injury Fatality Total
Pedestrian Right of Way (Driver not yielding) 105 0 105 Pedestrian Violation 69 5 74
Other 68 3 71
Unknown 35 2 37
Unsafe Speed125 4 29
Source: SWITRS

1. Refers to unsafe speeds given roadway conditions. This could refer to traveling above the posted speed limit or traveling too fast given the weather conditions (but still at or below the posted speed limit).

As shown in Table 7, the most common Primary Collision Factor (PCF) was drivers not yielding the right-of-way to pedestrians followed by pedestrians crossing illegally (such as crossing against a signal or midblock between signals). Illegal crossings and unsafe vehicle speeds were the leading causes of pedestrian fatalities based on the collision reports over the ten-year period.

The Pedestrian Action variable in the SWITRS dataset describes what the pedestrian was doing immediately before the collision occurred. Table 8 shows the most common Pedestrian Actions for pedestrian-involved collisions in Napa County.

TABLE 8: NAPA COUNTY PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED COLLISION SUMMARY PEDESTRIAN ACTIONS (2003-2012)
Primary Actions
Number of Collisions
Injury Fatality Total
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection 133 3 136
Crossing Not in Crosswalk 82 5 87
Walking In Road, Including Shoulder 58 5 63
Walking, Not in Road 14 1 15
Crossing in Crosswalk, Not at Intersection 10 0 10
Not Stated 4 0 4
Source: SWITRS
As shown in Table 8, the most common pedestrian actions were “Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection” and “Crossing Not in Crosswalk”. This data emphasizes the importance of enhancing existing marked crosswalks and 790

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
16 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
improving access and safety at key desire lines, or the shortest or most easily navigated path of travel between an origin and destination. Education and enforcement regarding pedestrian right-of-way may also be indicated.

Community Input
Ongoing public outreach and participation was an integral element in developing the Countywide Pedestrian Plan.

Public workshops were held throughout the County in Winter 2015 and were open to all members of the public countywide. For information on format of the public workshops and specific input received in each jurisdiction, refer to Chapters 2 through 7. Napa County residents, employees, and visitors who wanted to provide input but were unable or did not wish to attend the public workshops had the option of submitting their comments online through an interactive mapping tool.

Users placed pins on the maps to highlight desired improvements using pre-set comments or creating their own comment. Preset comments included:
 Make it safer to walk here
 Make it safer to cross the street here
 Barrier for persons with disabilities here
 High traffic volume or speed here
 Pedestrian facilities need maintenance here
 Add a sidewalk here
 Add a pedestrian pathway here
Results from the 70 comments submitted countywide are shown below in Exhibit 2. 791

NAPA COUNT Y

SONOMA COUNTY
UV128
UV121
UV128
UV12
UV121
UV29
UV12
UV29
Napa
Saint
Helena
Yountville
American
Canyon
NAPA
COUNTY
SOLANO
COUNTY
SONOMA
COUNTY

JEFFERSON ST

ELLIOTT DR
4TH AVE

OAKVILLE GRADE OAKVILLE CROSS RD

SOSCOL AVE

KELLY RD S

OLD SONOMA RD

SODA CANYON RD

SANITARIUM RD

DRY CREEK RD

ZINFANDEL LN

TRANCAS ST

FOSTER RD

LAS AMIGAS RD

IMOLA AVE

SOLANO AVE

DEER PARK RD
1ST ST

LINDA VISTA AVE

GREEN ISLAND RD

HAGENRD

MAIN ST

VICHY AVE

BIG RANCH RD

DUH GI RD

COOMBSVILLE RD

SPRING MOUNTAIN RD

REDWOOD RD
1ST AVE

BERRYESSA KNOXVILLE RD

ATLAS PEAK RD
3RD AVE SILVERADO TRL

CONN VALLEY RD

HOWELL MOUNTAIN RD

STEELE CANYON RD

BUHMAN AVE

WASHINGTON ST

WOODEN VALLEY RD

MOUNT VEEDER RD

AMERICAN CANYON RD

LOWER CHILES VALLEY RD

CHILES POPE VALLEY RD

WRAGG CANYON RD

WASHINGTON ST

YOUNT ST MIL
YOUNT
L RD

WASHINGTON
ST

YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD

02.5 5
Miles
Exhibit 2
Countywide Online Mapping Comments
UV29
JEFFERSON ST 1ST ST

W PUEBLO AVE

SOSCOL AVE

OLD SONOMA RD

REDWOOD RD

DRY CREEK RD

BROWNS VALLEY RD

JEFFERSON ST

SHETLER AVE

TRANCAS ST

FOSTER RD

PUEBLO AVE
3RD ST

SOLANO AVE
1ST ST

BYWAY E

LINCOLN AVE

TROWER AVE

THOMPSON AVE

MAIN ST

CALIFORNIA BLVD

BIG RANCH RD

LAUREL ST

HAGEN RD

COOMBSVILLE RD

GOLDEN GATE DR

ORCHARD AVE

IMOLA AVE

REDWOOD RD

SOSCOL AVE
1ST AVE

SALVADOR AVE

ATLAS PEAK R
S
D

ILVERADO TRL

BUHMAN AVE

HARDMAN AVE

COOMBS ST

GREEN ISLAND RD

WHITE LN

DOWDELL LN

ZINFANDEL LN

SULPHUR

SPRINGS AVE
CRA
AV
NE
E
Safety
Maintenance
ADA
Other (Add Your Own Idea)
Add a Pedstrian pathway
Add a Sidewalk Here
Other (Add Your Own Idea)
792

COUNTYWIDE INTRODUCTION
18 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Individual Jurisdictions
The following chapters provide individual Pedestrian Plans by jurisdiction. Each chapter focuses on one geographic area within the County, moving from north to south. The location-based chapters are ordered as follows:

Chapter 2: Calistoga
Chapter 3: St. Helena
Chapter 4: Yountville
Chapter 5: Napa
Chapter 6: American Canyon
Chapter 7: Unincorporated
The chapters all contain the same format with information framed specifically for that jurisdiction. Content includes pedestrian setting, countywide public and stakeholder outreach, key opportunity areas within the jurisdiction, priority projects and implementation, and a discussion on funding needs and sources for the jurisdiction plan. These chapters are meant to act as standalone plans to be used in conjunction with key recommendations in the Countywide Implementation Chapter of the countywide plan (Chapter 8), which highlights key countywide support programs and performance goals. 793
American Canyon Plan
CHAPTER 6
794
This page intentionally left blank.
795

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
1 Chapter 6
American Canyon Plan
Pedestrian Setting
American Canyon is a suburban community at the southern edge of Napa County, with approximately 20,000 residents. It acts as a gateway to Napa County for the many visitors traveling by car from San Francisco to the south and from the west across San Pablo Bay. The city was incorporated in 1992 and although most of the city has sidewalks, some older neighborhoods maintain a rural character with few sidewalks and open vistas. Residents enjoy a well-developed trail system, including small pedestrian pathways that connect neighborhoods and open space. The city does not have a centralized downtown; the main commercial corridor is clustered around SR 29, which runs through the center of American Canyon. Several future developments are expected to provide enhanced pedestrian facilities and potential pedestrian nodes, including Watson Ranch and the industrial development along the northern border of the City just south of the Napa County Airport. Land use patterns for the City are shown in Exhibit AC-1. A city destination map, including the locations of public buildings, shopping and tourist attractions, is shown in Exhibit AC-2.
796

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
2 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Existing Policies and Programs
To help guide the development of key programs and policies for this Plan, American Canyon’s existing approaches to facilitating and enhancing walking were reviewed with a benchmarking matrix that compares the existing programs, policies, and practices with national best practices. The benchmarking analysis categorizes each jurisdiction’s programs, policies, and practices into three areas as follows:
 Key Strengths (areas where the jurisdiction is exceeding national best practices)  Enhancement Areas (areas where the jurisdiction is meeting best practices)  Opportunity Areas (areas where the jurisdiction should consider meeting best practices) As summarized in Table AC-1, the City of American Canyon has made investments in making its streets more accessible to pedestrians of all abilities through its ADA Transition Plan update and excels in such areas as public involvement and traffic calming programs. This plan provides a framework for expanding pedestrian investments in areas of opportunity such as collision reporting and prioritization, inventory of pedestrian facilities, walking audits, and crosswalk design guidelines. The full benchmarking analysis for American Canyon, with associated recommendations, is presented in Appendix AC-A.
797

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
3 TABLE AC-1: AMERICAN CANYON BENCHMARKING HIGHLIGHTS
Plans, Policies, & Programs American Canyon Current Practice Best Practice Examples Key Strengths
ADA Transition Plan
Compliance with the Americans with
Disability Act (ADA) guidelines is
important not only to enhance community
accessibility, but also to improve walking
conditions for all pedestrians.

An ADA Transition Plan sets forth the
process for bringing public facilities into
compliance with ADA regulations.

The city has an ADA Transition Plan from
2008 that includes an inventory of needed
improvements for deficient sidewalks and
curb ramps in the public right-of-way along
priority corridors.

The city uses Caltrans standard drawings
for curb ramps which include tactile
grooves; however, they do not include
truncated domes or directional curb ramps.
 Consider tracking ADA improvements using
practices recommended in the ADA
Transition Plan 2015 update, to be
implemented by the ADA Coordinator
 Implement directional curb ramps where
practical and truncated domes in all cases.

Review and revise standard drawings to align
with PROWAG recommendations.

Traffic Calming Program
Traffic Calming Programs and policies set
forth a systematic and consistent
approach for addressing neighborhood
requests and approvals, as well as
standard treatments and criteria.

American Canyon has a Traffic Calming
Program that outlines the steps for a
community interested in traffic calming,
defines the various traffic calming options
and appropriate uses, and establishes
guidelines for installing the traffic calming
measures.
 Include a line item in the annual budget to
create a formal Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program (NTMP) to allow
additional traffic calming implementation
and an inventory of improvements.
 Encourage the routine use of traffic calming
measures beyond speed humps.

Public Involvement
Responding to public concerns through
public feedback mechanisms represents a
more proactive and inclusive approach to
pedestrian safety compared to a
conventional approach of reacting to
pedestrian collisions. Advisory committees
serve as important sounding boards for
new policies, programs, and practices. A
citizens’ pedestrian advisory committee is
also a key component of proactive public
involvement for identifying pedestrian
safety issues and opportunities.

The city’s “SeeClickFix” app allows people
to report non-emergency issues on a webbased map of the city. Residents can submit information directly to the city
regarding damaged sidewalk, deficient
lighting, or other non-emergency issues.
 Consider adding a page to the City’s website
for public input regarding transportation
issues with a subsection for pedestrian
topics. This category or subcategory may
allow residents to file comments or
complaints for traffic control devices or
dangerous conditions. Encourage broad use
of the “SeeClickFix” app for pedestrian issue
and opportunity input.
 Consider creating a formal Active
Transportation Advisory Committee (ATAC)
for city-specific issues. This Committee could
include the American Canyon representative
on the ATAC for NVTA.
 Consider organizing neighborhood groups
that identify street needs, including greening
and traffic calming.

Key Opportunities
Collision Reporting
Identifying and responding to collision
patterns on a regular basis is an important
reactive approach to pedestrian safety
(which may be combined with proactive
measures).

American Canyon does not have a regular
practice of reviewing collision data and
reports are reviewed as needed on a caseby-case basis. City engineers previously received regular reports from SWITRS, but
this data now goes straight to the Police
Department.
 Mapping and monitoring using Crossroads
software would allow for more proactive
pedestrian safety projects and collision
typing for countermeasure selection. GIS
efforts may be funded through an Office of
Traffic Safety grant.
 Pedestrian volume data could be used to
prioritize locations based on collision rates
(collisions/ pedestrian), creating a proactive
method to identify treatments and program
funding. For implementation, see the
Countywide Count Evaluation Program in this
plan.
798

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
4 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE AC-1: AMERICAN CANYON BENCHMARKING HIGHLIGHTS
Plans, Policies, & Programs American Canyon Current Practice Best Practice Examples Inventory of Pedestrian Facilities
A GIS-based sidewalk inventory enables
project identification and prioritization, as
well as project coordination with new
development, roadway resurfacing, etc.

The city does not have a GIS inventory of
sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities.

While sidewalk projects do not have a set
annual budget, they tend to comprise
approximately $100,000 of the annual
capital improvements program funding.

The majority of sidewalk projects in the
City are funded through grants in addition
to local funds.
 Expand the GIS-based facility inventory,
created as part of this plan, to include
informal pathways and key pedestrian
opportunity areas in the City.

Walking Audit Program
Walking audits provide an interactive
opportunity to receive feedback from key
stakeholders about the study area as well
as discuss potential solutions and their
feasibility.

American Canyon has not conducted
pedestrian walking audits before this plan.
 Conduct regular walking audits as part of a
citywide safety program for pedestrians.

This effort could complement a “trip and fall”
program or health-oriented programs within
the city, as well as distribution of the media
campaign NVTA is pursuing.

Crosswalk Design Guidelines
A formal policy for crosswalk installation,
removal, and enhancement provides
transparency in decision-making and
creates a consistent application of
treatments citywide.

The city currently does not have a
crosswalk policy and makes decisions
regarding crosswalks on a case by case
basis.
 Consider adopting a crosswalk policy as part
of this plan that reflects best practices and
recent research to include criteria for
installing crosswalk enhancements such as
flashing beacons, advanced yield markings,
or in-roadway pedestrian signs as well as
criteria for midblock crossings where strong
desire lines exist.
 Include criteria in the crosswalk policy for
identifying, installing, and enhancing
midblock crossings where strong desire lines
exist.
799
\\fpsf03\data\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0786_Napa_County_Wide_Ped_Plan\Graphics\PDF\LandUse\AI American Canyon - Land Use Map
Exhibit AC-1
Source: City of American Canyon General Plan Map, December 2010. 800
òƒ½½›¹

NAPA COUNTY
(UNINCORPORATED)

CITY OF

AMERICAN CANYON
ÝʽƒÄÊ
‘ÊçÄãù
ăփ
‘ÊçÄãù

NAPA JUNCTION -

WALMART

NAPA JUNCTION

SHOPPING
CENTER
MARSHALL’S

HONEY STAND

THE LODGE AT

NAPA JUNCTION
FUTURE

CANYON RIDGE

HOLIDAY INN

FAIRFIELD INN DOUBLETREE INN

NAPA VALLEY CASINO
CANYON
PLAZA +

CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE

WALGREENS
CANYON

CORNERS

AMERICAN CANYON

MARKETPLACE -

SAFEWAY
CITY
HALL
FUTURE

NAPA VALLEY

GARDENS

AND RUINS
PUBLIC

LIBRARY

NAPA JUNCTION

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

CALVARY

BAPTIST
CHURCH
JEHOVAH’S

WITNESS
CHURCH
HOLY
FAMILY
CHURCH
OPEN
DOOR

CHRISTIAN
CHURCH

NORTHHAMPTON
PARK

VETERANS

MEMORIAL
PARK

AMERICAN
CANYON

RECREATION
PARK

COMMUNITY
GARDEN

BASEBALL
FIELDS

SILVER OAK
PARK

MAIN STREET
PARK

SHENANDOAH
PARK
¦Ù››Ä
®Ý½ƒÄ—
Ùʃ—
—Êă½—ÝÊÄ óƒù

BROADWAY BROADWAY
ƒÃ›Ù®‘ƒÄ
‘ƒÄùÊÄ
Ùʃ—
ăփ
¹çđã®ÊÄ
ٗ
›ç‘ƒ
½ùÖãçÝ
Ùʃ—
Ù Ê® —›½
Ã
ƒ
Ù
—
Ê
Ä
ƒ
½
—
Ý
Ê
Ä
óƒù
67

67

¥çãçٛ
ě󛽽
—Ù®ò›
›øã›ÄÝ®ÊÄ
ÖÙÊÖÊݛ—
›ç‘ƒ½ùÖãçÝ
›øã›ÄÝ®ÊÄ
ƒÄ— Ý®¦Äƒ½®þ›—
®Äã›Ùݛ‘ã®ÊÄ
ÖÙÊÖÊݛ—
Ý®¦Äƒ½®þ›—
®Äã›Ùݛ‘ã®ÊÄ
Ã®Ä Ýã

ELLIOTT DR

DANROSE DR

JAMES RD

MELVIN RD

SHENANDOAH DR

WILSON WAY KIMBERLY DR

BROADWAY
ƒÃ›Ù®‘ƒÄ
‘ƒÄùÊÄ
Ùʃ—
67

67

BROADWAY BROADWAY

AMERICAN CANYON

COMMUNITY PARK
DONALDSON WAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

AMERICAN CANYON

MIDDLE SCHOOL
Priority Development Area
Community Amenities LEGEND
City of American Canyon
ParkCivic Asset/Node
Commercial NodePlace of Worship
Residential Node
0 160 480 640 ft
SR-29 Priority Development Area SpeciƤc Plan
American Canyon - Destination Map
Exhibit AC-2
Source: MIG.
\\Fpsf03\data\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0786_Napa_County_Wide_Ped_Plan\Graphics\PDF\Destination Maps\AI 801

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
7 Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure
An inventory of existing sidewalks, marked crosswalks, curb ramps and trails was collected on key roadways throughout the city using a combination of aerial imagery and Google Street View imagery from the years 2011 – 2014 (imagery for a few small residential streets dated back to 2007).

A GIS database assembled for the inventory includes additional detail beyond what is illustrated in the inventory maps, including the style of crosswalk striping, the method of vehicle control at the crosswalk (i.e., traffic signal, flashing beacon, stop sign, or uncontrolled), whether the crosswalk was located in a school zone, and the curb ramp design (i.e., whether the ramp is directional or diagonal and if it has truncated domes). For more information and examples of these types of facilities, please see the Best Practices Toolkit, Appendix D of the Countywide Pedestrian Plan.

American Canyon Inventory
A roadway network of 34 miles in the City of American Canyon was identified by city staff for inventory collection.

This network was determined by excluding roadways within residential developments constructed after the year 1996, due to adequate sidewalk coverage and curb ramps compliant with ADA legislation at that time. As shown in Exhibit AC-3, the residential roadways surveyed generally have a connected sidewalk network, with the exception of the Mc Knight Acres neighborhood which includes north-south streets James Road and Andrew Road, as well as east-west streets Donaldson Way and Crawford Way. City staff identified existing development as a potential constraint for sidewalk installation in this area, as many houses are located close to the edge of the street. City staff also identified the need for crossing improvements at the signalized intersection of SR 29 and Donaldson Way, where crosswalks are marked along all but the north leg. Sidewalk gaps are also present along Donaldson Way approaching SR 29 from both the East and the West. Several completed segments of the Vine Trail and Bay trail run through American Canyon, shown as multi-use pathways on Exhibit AC-3, as well as smaller path systems that serve as neighborhood pedestrian connections.

American Canyon: Benton Way at Chaucer Lane
802

NAPA JUNCTION RD

THERESA
AVE

GREEN ISLAND RD
29 KELLY RD S

GREEN ISLAND RD
C:\Users\trysen\Desktop\AC3_AmericanCanyon_Inventory_aug18_3a.mxd Exhibit AC-3a
Pedestrian Facility Inventory
City of American Canyon
0 0.25 0.5
Mile
Transit Hub (provides regional and
BART connections)
American Canyon Boundary
Parks and Open Space
Schools
Pedestrian Inventory
Sidewalks
Asphalt
Existing
Missing
Trails
Paved Multi-Use Trail
Unpaved Trail Roads not Surveyed
Crosswalks
1 2
3 4
Missing Curb Ramp
803

MAIN ST

CTION RD

AMERICAN CANYON RD

BROADWAY

AMES RD
ON WAY
WAY
\\Fpse03\fpse2\Data2\2014Projects\SF_Projects\SF14-0786_NapaPedPlan\DN\Rebrand\MXD_daniel\AC3_AmericanCanyon_Inventory_aug18 (2).mxd Exhibit AC-3c
Pedestrian Facility Inventory
City of American Canyon
0 0.25 0.5
Mile
Transit Hub (provides regional and
BART connections)
American Canyon Boundary
Parks and Open Space
Schools
Pedestrian Inventory
Sidewalks
Asphalt
Existing
Missing
Trails
Paved Multi-Use Trail
Unpaved Trail Trail Crossings
Roads not Surveyed
Crosswalks
1 2
3 4
Missing Curb Ramp
804

MAIN ST

NAPA JUNCTION RD

ANDREW RD

ELLIOTT DR

RIO DEL MAR

BROADWAY

EUCALYPTUS DR

DANROSE DR
JAME
S RD

DONALDSON WAY

CRAWFORD WAY

W AMERICAN CANYON RD

MELVIN RD

BENTON WAY

THERESA AVE

W CAROLYN DR

WILSON WAY

POCO WAY

CASSAYRE DR

WETLANDS EDGE
RD

ELLIOTT DR

RIO DEL MAR
\\Fpse03\fpse2\Data2\2014Projects\SF_Projects\SF14-0786_NapaPedPlan\DN\Rebrand\MXD_daniel\AC3_AmericanCanyon_Inventory_aug18 (2).mxd Exhibit AC-3b
Pedestrian Facility Inventory
City of American Canyon
0 0.25 0.5
Mile
Transit Hub (provides regional and
BART connections)
American Canyon Boundary
Parks and Open Space
Schools
Pedestrian Inventory
Sidewalks
Asphalt
Existing
Missing
Trails
Paved Multi-Use Trail
Unpaved Trail Trail Crossings
Roads not Surveyed
Crosswalks
1 2
3 4
Missing Curb Ramp
805

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
11 Activity Levels
Pedestrian counts were conducted at five locations throughout American Canyon in October and November 2015.

These locations were selected based on locations of proposed pedestrian projects in this plan, potential localized safety concerns, expected high expected levels of walking, and proximity to key pedestrian destinations, including schools and downtown commercial areas. Table AC-2 provides a summary of the two-hour counts completed within the jurisdiction. Count results varied significantly based on nearby neighborhood population density, as well as by the adjacent land use.

TABLE AC-2: AMERICAN CANYON COUNT PROGRAM LOCATIONS
ID Jurisdiction Location
Morning Evening School
7-9AM 4-6PM 2-4PM
AC1 American Canyon SR 29 and American Canyon Rd. 32 90 AC2 American Canyon Melvin Road at Poco Way 3 6
AC3 American Canyon James Road at Donaldson Way 23 42
AC4 American Canyon Elliott Drive at Donaldson Way 97 55 196 AC5 American Canyon Elliott Drive at Crawford Way 25 33 The highest volumes of pedestrians were observed at the intersection of Donaldson Way and Elliot Drive, located in close proximity to American Canyon Middle School and Donaldson Way Elementary School, during the hours of 2-4 PM. Observed pedestrian activity at this location was consistently high relative to other locations within American Canyon; nearly 100 pedestrian crossings were recorded during the AM period of 7-9 AM (concurrent with student arrival times) and almost 200 pedestrian crossings were recorded during the afternoon period, which coincides with school dismissal.

The intersection of Melvin Road and Poco Way (AC2) recorded the fewest pedestrian crossings – fewer than 10 pedestrians over each two-hour period observed. Melvin Road is a predominantly residential corridor. There are no marked crosswalks at this one-way stop controlled intersection, and sidewalks are present along one side of each of the intersecting streets.

Collision Analysis
Collision data was accessed from the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrate Traffic Records System (SWITRS). This data represents all reported pedestrian-vehicle collisions occurring during the ten-year period from January 2003 to December 2012.

Exhibit AC-4 shows the locations of these pedestrian collisions in American Canyon.

Exhibit AC-4 presents raw collision counts only. While this is illustrative of “hot spot” areas in American Canyon, another important consideration for identifying safety focus areas can be collisions per pedestrian (or the collision 806

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
12 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
rate). Collision rates (not included in the current analysis because pedestrian volume data is not available citywide) can highlight locations where improvements can be added to ensure a focus on areas that may not have as many people walking (but have high collision rates) in addition to areas with high pedestrian volumes and a high number of collisions.

Hot Spots
According to data from the California Household Travel Survey (CHTS, 2012), the walking mode share in American Canyon for all trips is 2%, as compared to the countywide walking share of 10%. This aligns with the number of reported pedestrian-related collisions in the city, which is relatively low compared to the rest of the jurisdictions.

Three collisions were reported along American Canyon Road in the last ten years and two at the intersection of Benton Way and Wetlands Edge Road along the frontage of American Canyon Middle School.

Countywide Demographic and Seasonal Trends
For this plan, a review of collisions countywide included organizing the data by age for children and seniors, and comparing the results across each jurisdiction. Daily and seasonal trends for collision occurrences and primary collision factors were also reviewed countywide. A summary of these results can be found in the Countywide Walking Trends chapter of the countywide plan.

Pedestrian Actions
Perhaps one of the more telling sources of information in the SWITRS data is the Pedestrian Action variable, which describes what the pedestrian was doing immediately before the collision occurred. According to the pedestrian actions presented in Table AC-3, pedestrian safety issues surrounding collisions in American Canyon are typically focused around crossing locations.

TABLE AC-3: AMERICAN CANYON COLLISION SUMMARY PEDESTRIAN ACTIONS (2003-2012) Pedestrian Action
Number of Collisions
Injury Fatality Total1
Crossing Not in Crosswalk 4 0 4
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection 3 0 3
Walking, Not in Road 1 0 1

1. Some of the recorded collisions were unable to be mapped due to a missing location in the database.

Source: SWITRS
807
5 5
5 5 5
!
!
!
UV29

ELLIOTT DR

GREEN ISLAND RD

RIO DEL MAR

AMERICAN CANYON RD

BROADWAY

EUCALYPTUS DR

DANROSE DR

WETLANDS EDGE RD

JAMES RD

KELLY RD S

DONALDSON WAY

CRAWFORD WAY

W AMERICAN CANYON RD
MELVIN
RD

BENTON WAY
THE

RESA AVE

W CAROLYN DR

WILSON WAY

POCO WAY

FLOSDEN RD

CASSAYRE DR

NAPA JUNCTION RD

NEWELL DR

AIRPORT RD

HESS DR

MARLA DR

CHAUCER LN TOWER RD

KIMBERLY DR

JOAN DR

MAIN ST

LOS ALTOS DR DEVLIN RD

WATSON LN
ANDR
EW RD

SILVER OAK TRL

DON ALDSON WAY E

GISE LA DR

CAPRA DR
CARO
LYN DR

COMMERCE BLVD

HANNA DR

RIO GRANDE

FOLLAND DR PAOLI LOOP RD

NORTHAM P TON DR

KNIGHTSBRID GE WAY

HOLCOMB LN

FORD DR

ENTRADA CIR

SPIKERUSH CIR

N BRO OKFIELD

S BROOKFIELD

VIA BELLAGIO

CARTAGENA WAY

LANDANA ST

VENTA N A D R

SHENANDOAH DR

WESTPARK

RINGNECK ST

LARKSPUR ST

RED CLOVER WAY

FOREST LN

REDHEAD ST

REDWOOD CIR

TAPESTRY LN

PALAZZO WAY

MEDEIROS LN

SUMMERWOOD DR

PATRICIA DR

KAREN DR

SARC EDO W AY
HUMM
ING

BIRD WAY

HIGH RIDGE D R

WHITE OAK DR

RENWOOD LN

HEARTHSTONE DR

SAGEBRUSH LN

HUNTINGTON W AY

KENSIN GTON WAY

NEWBURY WAY

SIERRA V ISTA

AMARILLO DR

CANTADA WAY

HEARTFORD WAY

SONOMA CREEK WAY

SAN MARCO WAY

VIA LA MORRA

WETLANDS EDGE RD

CANYON CREEK DR VIA FIRENZE

BROPHY ST

MONTEC A RL O WAY

V I A PE S CARA

TERRAZZO LN

CREEKSIDE CIR

GOLDFINCH DR

TRAILER PARK ROAD

ALTA LOMA DR
N:\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0786_Napa_County_Wide_Ped_Plan\Graphics\GIS\MXD_daniel\AmericanCanyon_Collisions_jul27.mxd Exhibit AC-4
Pedestrian-Involved Collisions
2003 - 2012 City of American Canyon
5 Schools
Parks
Napa Boundary

00.5 1
Mile
Pedestrian-Involved
Collisions 2003-2012
! 1
! 2
Pedestrian Collision Hotspots
None of these intersections experienced a fatal collision. !
!
# of Injury !
Collisions
Density Intersection Total Collisions
5 5
!
!
!

ELLIOTT DR
JAMES
RD

CRAWFORD WAY

W AMERICAN CANYON RD

DONALDSON WAY

BENTON WAY

WETLANDS EDGE RD

BROAD WAY

DANROSE DR

AMERICAN CANYON RD

CHAUCER LN

ANDREW RD

NORTHAMPTON DR

LARKSPUR ST

HOLCOMB LN HUMM
ING

BIRD WAY
HUNTIN

GTON WAY

NEWBURY WAY

SIERRA VIST A

CAROLYN DR

HEARTFORD
WAY

SAN MARCO WAY

PEACOCK CIR

WETLANDS EDGE RD

KNIGHTSBRIDGE WAY

KENSINGTON WAY

SILVER OAK TRL

DONALDSON WAY E

SPIKERUS H CIR

HEARTHSTONE DR

TRAILER PARK ROAD
808

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
14 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Public and Stakeholder Input
Countywide Outreach
Input on plan goals and objectives, current pedestrian issues, and desired locations for improvement was solicited through meetings with jurisdiction staff and key stakeholders, countywide public workshops, and an interactive mapping tool made available online. The goal was to develop a community-supported vision for pedestrian improvements. A summary of all input received during this process countywide is displayed in Table AC-4.

Connectivity and safety were the key themes across the countywide comments.

TABLE AC-4: PUBLIC INPUT RECEIVED COUNTYWIDE
Comment Comment Type Percent of Total Comments
Add a sidewalk here Connectivity 16%
Make it safer to cross the street here Safety 15%
Make it safer to walk here Safety 14%
Add a pedestrian pathway Connectivity 13%
High traffic volume or speed here Safety / Walkability 8.5% Pedestrian facilities need maintenance here Walkability 4.5% Barrier for persons with disabilities here Accessibility 2% Other (Add your own idea) 27%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015
Examples of the comments that were categorized as “add your own idea” in American Canyon are included in the Station One narrative below.

Public Workshops
Ongoing public outreach and participation was an integral element in developing the Countywide Pedestrian Plan.

Public workshops were advertised on NVTA’s website, as well as via local media including the newspaper and radio. Invitations to the public workshops were also sent to local stakeholders, including senior centers, mobility impaired groups, advisory committees and local non-profit groups. The goal of the workshops was to identify public concerns and opportunity areas to inform focus areas, educate the stakeholders, and solicit feedback on the plan vision and goals.

Public workshops were held throughout the County in Winter 2015: in Napa on January 22 at NVTA; in American Canyon on January 27; in St. Helena on January 28; and in American Canyon on February 4. Due to recent public workshops held in Calistoga through development of their Active Transportation Plan in 2014, workshops were not held in the City. All workshops were open to all members of the public countywide. Photos of workshop posters are included in Appendix A of the countywide plan.
809

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
15 The format for each public workshop was the same and consisted of four stations:
 Station One: Issues/Opportunities
At Station One, participants voted on a list of common
barriers to walking to indicate those that were most
relevant to the walking environment in their jurisdiction and countywide. Participants also wrote comments on
large-scale aerial maps placed on tables or on the floor to highlight existing barriers to pedestrian travel and
locations where improvements were needed. Suggested
comments included “Make it safer to cross the street
here” or “High traffic volume or speed here”. Comments were mapped in GIS after the workshops to visualize the areas of reported pedestrian needs and inform the decision for focus area locations. The results of this mapping exercise included over 40 comments in the City of American Canyon, and results are shown in Exhibit AC-5. Comments were grouped into six categories, including a miscellaneous category “Add your own idea”. This category was used for comments that did not fall into any of the major themes shown in Table AC-4. Examples of these miscellaneous comments included documentation of cut-through traffic, future Vine Trail connections, and locations of barriers to neighborhood pedestrian connections. All public comments were considered in the process to choose focus areas for the Plan, discussed under Opportunity Areas in this Plan, and when identifying candidate pedestrian improvements.  Station Two: Best Practices Toolbox
Station Two was an informative station that displayed examples of best practices for pedestrian treatments frequently used in pedestrian planning efforts. Treatments included sidewalk buffers, intersection features, crosswalk enhancements, as well as signal and striping modifications.  Station Three: Goals Visioning
At Station Three, participants had the opportunity to
weigh in on draft goals for the plan and write their
own vision statement. Conflicting desires related to
transportation were also presented on either end of
the scale and participants were asked to place stickers where they thought the balance should be struck.

Tradeoffs included ease of walking compared to ease
of driving and creating a comprehensive pedestrian
network compared to improved transit service. This
information is valuable to determine where the public
would like resources to be focused.
 Station 4: Collision Maps
Station Four was an informative station that displayed the collision maps shown in this plan. 810
29 ELLIOTT DR

GREEN ISLAND RD

RIO DEL MAR

AMERICAN CANYON RD

BROADWAY

EUCALYPTUS DR

DANROSE DR

WETLANDS EDGE RD

JAMES RD

KELLY RD S

DONALDSON WAY

CRAWFORD WAY

W AMERICAN CANYON RD

MELVIN RD

BENTON WAY

THERESA AVE

W CAROLYN DR

WILSON WAY

FLOSDEN RD

CASSAYRE DR

W AMERICAN CANYON RD
N:\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0786_Napa_County_Wide_Ped_Plan\Graphics\GIS\MXD\WorkshopMXD\Workshop.mxd Workshop Comments
American Canyon
Schools
Parks
Napa Boundary
Downtown Core

00.5 1
Mile Safety
Maintenance
ADA
Other
Sidewalk/Pathway
Other
Exhibit AC-5
811

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
17 Online Survey Mapping Tool
Napa County residents, employees, and visitors who wanted to provide input but were unable or did not wish to attend the public workshops had the option of submitting their comments online through an interactive mapping tool. Users placed pins on the maps to highlight desired improvements using pre-set comments or creating their own comment. Preset comments included:
 Make it safer to walk here
 Make it safer to cross the street here
 Barrier for persons with disabilities here
 High traffic volume or speed here
 Pedestrian facilities need maintenance here
 Add a sidewalk here
 Add a pedestrian pathway here
Results from the 70 comments submitted countywide are shown in Exhibit 2 of the countywide plan. 812

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
18 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
American Canyon-Specific Focus Groups
At the outset of the plan development process, meetings were held with key staff from American Canyon to initiate the planning process on December 16, 2014.

This meeting included a discussion of existing programs, policies and practices. Examples from other cities as well as recommendations for improvements are provided in the benchmarking summary table in Appendix AC-A.

Jurisdiction staff also provided input during the initial benchmarking meeting and at the public workshops on key areas where pedestrian improvements are planned and in some cases, where connections and safety improvements are desired. This input was used to inform potential opportunities for walking audit routes, as well as discussed along with the facility inventory maps under the Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure section of this plan.

Key goals for the pedestrian planning process were also discussed with American Canyon staff and included creating a sidewalk maintenance policy and updating the ADA Transition Plan. These goals are incorporated into key programmatic and policy recommendations in this plan.

Additional focus group meetings were held for the American Canyon walking audit on May 19, 2015, and to review the list of suggested pedestrian projects on August 20, 2015.

Perceived Barriers
As shown in Table AC-4, connectivity and safety are two of the top pedestrian issues identified from the public. To geographically visualize the safety concerns in American Canyon, a heat map was created, shown in Exhibit AC-6.

This map shows the density of safety-related public comments received during the outreach process, and is intended to represent perceived barriers to walking. These locations may be under-represented in the collision data due to a high level of collision under-reporting with SWITRS data6 or fewer people walking as a result of these
perceived issues. This map provides an important lens into key areas for concern, and may help supplement collision data to identify locations where near misses and other safety-related (but non-reported) issues may be present.

6 Sciortino, S., Vassar, M., Radetsky, M. and M. Knudson, “San Francisco Pedestrian Injury Surveillance: Mapping, Underreporting, and Injury Severity in Police and Hospital Records,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Volume 37, Issue 6, November 2005, Pages 1102-1113 813
5 5
5 5
5 MAIN ST

NAPA JUNCTION RD

ANDREW RD
UV29

ELLIOTT DR

RIO DEL MAR

GREEN ISLAND RD

BROADWAY

EUCALYPTUS DR

AMERICAN CANYON RD

DANROSE DR

WETLANDS EDGE RD

JAMES RD

DONALDSON WAY

CRAWFO RD WAY

W AMERICAN CANYON RD

MELVIN RD

BENTON WAY

THERESA AVE

W CAROLYN DR

WILSON WAY

POCO WAY

FLOSDEN RD

CASSAYR E DR

W AMERICAN CANYON RD
N:\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0786_Napa_County_Wide_Ped_Plan\Graphics\GIS\MXD_daniel\NCPP_Safety_AmericanCanyon_may10.mxd Exhibit AC-6
Perceived Barriers: As Visualized by Safety-Related Public Comments City of American Canyon

00.5 1
M
This map is a visual representation of safety-related public comments (i.e. "make it safer to walk here" or "high traffic volume or speed here") received during the outreach process, intended to represent potential barriers to walking. These locations may be under-represented in the collision data due to under-reporting or fewer people walking as a result of safety concerns. This map may help supplement collision data to identify locations where near-misses or other safety-related issues may be present. 5 Schools
Parks
American Canyon Boundary
Safety-Related Comments
Many Issues (2) Few Issues (0)
814

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
20 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Opportunity Areas
The City of American Canyon is focused on updating and implementing their ADA Transition Plan, and they have recognized this moment as a key opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety and mobility in concert with the accessibility updates. The city’s single-family residential subdivisions and the commercial corridor’s orientation along SR 29 present unique challenges to the pedestrian environment. This plan expands on existing efforts by developing a list of proposed pedestrian facilities within key focus areas of the city and referencing those that have been developed by other plans. Initial focus areas for the Plan were developed using a data-driven GIS process that evaluates several factors related to the built environment and demographics that affect the propensity to walk. This process, called the “Ped INDEX”, was adapted by work done by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been used in several plans in the Bay Area to map the qualitative likelihood of demand for pedestrian activity.

Ped INDEX
The main factors used in the Ped INDEX are population density, land use mix, presence of schools or parks, intersection density, location of downtown commercial areas, and age. These factors resulted in a “heat map” which displays an estimate for relative pedestrian demand on the streets throughout the City of American Canyon.

More detail on the Ped INDEX methodology and results as well potential applications can be found in Appendix B of the countywide plan.

To balance high pedestrian demand areas with key areas of need in American Canyon, additional data layers were used to display pedestrian deficiencies. These include gaps in sidewalk and reported pedestrian-involved collisions. In general, places with high pedestrian demand and a high infrastructure need are shown as target areas that could be prioritized for pedestrian improvements. The resulting heat map with overlaid demand and deficiencies is shown in Exhibit AC-7.

As illustrated on Exhibit AC-7, Ped INDEX focus locations include the area adjacent to American Canyon Road and Canyon Oaks Elementary School, neighborhoods adjacent to Donaldson Way Elementary School, as well as neighborhood pockets near Elliott Drive and Folland Drive. After reviewing the locations of comments received during public outreach and the alignment with focus locations on the Ped INDEX maps, two potential walking audits were recommended to city staff:
 Western Routes to School: Elliot Drive from American Canyon Road to Donaldson Way; Donaldson Way from Elliot Drive to SR 29; James Road from Donaldson Way to Crawford Way (1 mile) This area includes connections to the hot spots such as Donaldson Elementary School and American Canyon Middle School. It also covers a portion of Donaldson Way that lacks sidewalks and acts as a key route for school children, which aligns with desired improvements from both city staff and the public input. James Road also lacks sidewalk and is a key connector to this route. Several public comments were 815

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
21 received highlighting the need for traffic calming along Elliot Drive due to cut through traffic as well as the need for improved crossings at SR 29 and Donaldson Way.  Eastern Routes to School: American Canyon Road from Newell Drive to Danrose Drive; James Road from American Canyon Road to Crawford Way (1 mile)
Several comments during the workshop highlighted the lack of sidewalk along American Canyon Road, a key connection to the high school. Several pedestrian collisions have also been reported along this route, between James Road and Broadway. This walking audit route also addresses pedestrian connections from the residential development south of American Canyon Road through Silver Oak Park to Canyon Oaks Elementary School.

After discussions with city staff regarding candidate locations, a combination of the above recommended focus areas, for a total of just over one mile, was chosen for study during walking audits:
 Donaldson Way from SR 29 to Elliot Drive
 James Road from Donaldson Way to Crawford Way
 Elliot Drive from Donaldson Way to W American Canyon Road 2016 ADA Transition Plan Update
The city refreshed their 2008 ADA Transition Plan to document any recently improved curb ramps and sidewalks marked deficient in the original Plan. Field measurements were also collected along the walking audit routes shown above to determine the accessibility of sidewalks, curb ramps, driveways, and signal accommodations in the public right of way. The survey results for each location were mapped in GIS for future tracking. Areas that were outside of the audit route that were listed as deficient in the 2008 plan were also mapped – these areas were noted as needing updates or as recently improved requiring field verification. A refreshed schedule of improvements and prioritization categories for removing accessibility barriers in the public right-of-way was also developed as part of the updated plan. Best practices for tracking compliance of facilities were discussed and summarized for use going forward.
816
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
Benton Way
Hess Road
N:\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0786_Napa_County_Wide_Ped_Plan\Graphics\GIS\MXD_daniel\AC-7_AmericanCanyon_may4.mxd ùú29

N A P A C O U N T Y
A m e r i c a n C a n y o n
ùú29

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
American Canyon - Pedestrian Index
Demand & Deficiencies
Exhibit AC-7
Pedestrian Collisions
(Injuries)
:8 Pedestrian Fatality
1 2
Missing Sidewalks Parks !( School
Deficiencies: Legend:

Pedestrian Index Score Major Retail
Demand:

High
Low
Trail/Path
Danrose Driv
E
e
lliott Dr vi e
Wetlands Edge Road
West American Canyon Road
Broadway Street
Paoli Loop Road
Devlin Road
LosAltos Drive
Green Island Road
American Canyon Road
Eucalyptus Drive
Airport Road
Sonoma Boulevard
Watson Lane
Newell Drive
Rio del Mar L a ndfillLoo p Trail
Main Street
Park
Shenandoah
Park
Melvin
Park
Safeway
Plaza
Walgreens
Library
Donaldson Way
817

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
23 Priority Projects and Implementation Plan
An important outcome of this plan is the designation of a priority project list and an implementation plan for these projects. The priority project list was assembled based on:
 Results of the Walking Audit conducted for the plan
 Projects recommended through related planning efforts, such as the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP)
 Conversations with staff and stakeholders regarding other local priorities Walking Audits
Walking audits were conducted in April 2015 with Cheryl Braulick of American Canyon Public Works to observe field conditions and brainstorm potential ideas for improvement.

During the walking audits, visual surveys were conducted to observe physical characteristics and conditions of the pedestrian environment as well as the connectivity and continuity of the surrounding pedestrian network. A debrief was held afterwards with the group to discuss observations and determine suggestions for improvements.

Project List and Map
Suggested pedestrian projects developed during the Pedestrian Plan walking audits and similar, recent efforts are shown in Exhibit AC-8. Descriptions of each project and additional program and policy recommendations are included below under Priority Projects.
818




HUMMINGBIRD WAY SPIKERUSH CIR

CHAUCER LN

JOAN DR

NAPA JUNCTION RD

GISELA DR

CAROLYN DR

RINGNECK ST

RED CLOVER WAY

HESS DR

RIO GRANDE

HUNTINGTON WAY

PEACOCK CIR

LANDANA ST

LARKSPUR ST

MAIN ST

ANDREW RD

GADWALL ST

LOS ALTOS DR

MEDEIROS LN
WETLA
N
DS ED
GE RD

CRAWFORD WAY

RIO DEL MAR

ELLIOTT
DR
T
HERESA
AVE

WILSON WAY

DONALDSON WAY

BENTON WAY

W CAROLYN DR

MELVIN RD

POCO WAY

W AMERICAN CANYON RD
JAM
ES RD

EUCALYPTUS DR
\\fpsf03\data\Projects\2014 Projects\SF14-0786_Napa_County_Wide_Ped_Plan\Graphics\GIS\MXD\ProjectLocation\ProjectLocationsMap_AmericanCanyon.mxd American Canyon - Project Locations
Exhibit AC-8


SPIKERUSH CIR

JOAN DR

GISELA DR

CAROLYN DR

RINGNECK ST N

RED CLOVER WAY

HESS DR

ANDE RIO GRA RIO GRANDE

LANDANA ST

GADWALL ST

MEDEIROS LN

RIO DEL MAR

DONALDSON WAY

W CAROLYN DR

EUCALYPTUS DR
RED CL
AC-1: Eucalyptus Drive/Theresa Avenue Intersection,
Complete Streets (No. 2 Constrained CTP Project)
AC-2: SR 29 Traffic Calming and James Road Sidewalks
AC-3: Donaldson Way Improvements
AC-4: Safe Routes to School Improvements
AC-5: Elliot Drive Traffic Calming
AC-6: American Canyon Road Improvements
AC-7: SR-29 Pedestrian Crossings *
American Canyon Walking Audit Transit Hub
School
AC-9: Vine Trail Railroad
Crossing
AC-10: Pedestrian/Bicycle
Railroad Crossing
AC-11: Danrose/Kimberley
Crossing Improvements
AC-12: Commerce Blvd
Extension
AC-13: Newell Open Space
Pathway
AC-14: River to Ridge Trail
AC-15: Walsh Creek
Neighborhood Pathway
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 American Canyon Improvements
Tier 1 and 2 Pedestrian Improvements

1 2
2 4
5 6
4 3
T
T
Regional and BART
connections
 

 
13 14
15 8
9 11
10 14
15 12
13 11
9 10
12 FLOSDEN RD

CRAWFORD WAY

ELLIOTT DR

BROADWAY

DONALDSON WAY

RIO DEL MAR

EUCALYPTUS DR
Previously Planned Improvements*
*These projects are referenced in other planning documents, and were not evaluated during the scope of this Plan.
|þ29
|þ29
7 7
AC-1: SR 29 Gateway
(No. 7 Constrained
CTP Project)
8 819

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
25 Priority Projects
Existing funding for pedestrian facilities is limited and cannot successfully cover more than a fraction of the recommendations in this plan. Available regional, state and Federal funding sources and grant cycles are highly competitive among worthy projects and other jurisdictions. To help prioritize pedestrian investments for the limited available funding, this plan prioritizes projects according to six criteria:
 Local importance
 Safety enhancements
 Proximity to schools
 Proximity to transit
 Sidewalk gap and trail connections
 Cost
These criteria and the metrics used to define them are described in more detail in Appendix AC-C. Each pedestrian improvement project is shown in one of two tiers based on the number of evaluation criteria it meets. Detailed results and project descriptions can be found in Appendix AC-C. A summary of the improvements is shown in Table AC-5.

Other Planned Improvements
The City of American Canyon recently identified several pedestrian-related improvements in planning efforts beyond this plan, such as the General Plan Circulation Element (2013) and the American Canyon Bicycle Plan (2012). Improvements include pedestrian overcrossings of SR 29, enhanced pedestrian access on Commerce Boulevard to connect to the northern industrial area of the city, several multi-use pathway connections, and crossing enhancements at the residential intersection of Danrose Drive and Kimberly Drive. These improvements are in various stages of planning; many are being considered as a component of specific development such as the American Canyon Town Center or focused planning efforts such as the Broadway District Specific Plan. These planned improvements were assigned to “Tier Three” in Table AC-5 and were not evaluated for prioritization. 820

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
26 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE AC-5: AMERICAN CANYON PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
Project ID Location Description Pedestrian Component Estimated Cost

ON-GOING SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
Sidewalk Gap Closure
and Maintenance (No.
1 2015 CTP Program)
Citywide Sidewalk maintenance, rehabilitation and expansion Sidewalks
Maintenance
$$$

TIER ONE
AC-2
SR 29 Traffic Calming
and James Road
Sidewalks
James Road, Melvin Road, Cassavre Drive,
Theresa Avenue Traffic calming study Traffic calming
$1,035,000
James Road, Donaldson Way to American
Canyon Road
Near Term: Sidewalk installation Sidewalks
Medium-Term: Sidewalk installation Sidewalks
Long-Term: Sidewalk installation Sidewalks
AC-3
Donaldson Way
Improvements
Donaldson Way, SR 29 to James Road Sidewalk Sidewalk
$570,900
Donaldson Way, James Road to Andrew
Road Tree trimming Maintenance
Donaldson Way at Andrew Road Marked crosswalks Crossing treatments Donaldson Way, Carolyn Drive to Andrew
Road Sidewalks Sidewalk
AC-4
Safe Routes to School
Improvements
Donaldson Way at Elliott Drive Roundabout and relocated bus stop Traffic calming
Crossing treatments $356,600
Benton Way at Chaucer Lane Crosswalk enhancements1Crossing treatments AC-7
SR 29 Pedestrian
Crossings2
SR 29 at American Canyon Road and Rio
Del Mar Grade-separated pedestrian crossings Crossing treatments $$$

TIER TWO
AC-1
Eucalyptus
Drive/Theresa Avenue
Intersection, Complete
Streets (No. 2 CTP
Project)
Eucalyptus Drive at Theresa Avenue Roundabout (As part of Eucalyptus Drive Realignment Project) Traffic Calming $$
821

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
27 TABLE AC-5: AMERICAN CANYON PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
Project ID Location Description Pedestrian Component Estimated Cost
AC-5
Elliot Drive Traffic
Calming
Elliot Drive from Donaldson Way to
Crawford Way
Neck downs with bicycle access Traffic calming
$$
Signage Signing and striping
Elliot Drive at Crawford Way Traffic circle with enhanced1 marked crosswalk Traffic calming
Crossing treatments
Elliot Drive at Larkspur Street Traffic circle Traffic calming Elliot Drive from Larkspur Street to
American Canyon Road Raised median with restriping and relocated bus stop Crossing treatments
Transit
AC-6
American Canyon Road
Improvements
American Canyon Road at Elliot Drive Near Term: Crosswalk enhancements1 Crossing treatments ADA ramps
$$
West of Elliot Drive Long Term: Feasibility study for linear park Pathway
Traffic calming
PREVIOUSLY PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS4
AC-8
SR 29 Gateway (No. 7
CTP Constrained
Project list)
SR 29, American Canyon Road to Napa
Junction Road
Pathway, enhanced crosswalks1, Class I pathway and
Class IV bikeways
Sidewalks
Crossing Treatments
Pathway $$$
SR 29 at Donaldson Way Crosswalk enhancements1 Crossing treatments ADA ramps
AC-9
Vine Trail Railroad
Crossing3
SR 29 at Paoli Loop Road Grade-separated Vine Trail crossing Crossing treatments $$$ AC-10
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Railroad Crossing3
Railroad tracks east of SR 29 near proposed
“Town Center” Grade-separated pedestrian crossing Crossing treatments $$$ AC-11
Danrose / Kimberly
Crossing
Improvements3
Danrose Drive at Kimberly Drive Feasibility study for reduced crossing distances Traffic calming Crossing treatments $
822

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
28 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE AC-5: AMERICAN CANYON PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
Project ID Location Description Pedestrian Component Estimated Cost
AC-12
Commerce Boulevard
Extension3
Commerce Boulevard, from Eucalyptus
Drive to southern terminus of Commerce
Boulevard
Multi-use path Pathway $$
AC-13
Newell Open Space
Pathway3
Newell Creek, Newell Open Space Entrance
at Newell Drive through Newell Open
Space
River to Ridge multi-use path connection Pathway $$$
AC-14
River to Ridge Trail3
Eucalyptus Drive and South Napa Junction
Road from Wetlands Edge Road to Newell
Drive
Multi-use path from Theresa Avenue to Newell Drive;
Class II bike lanes west of Theresa Avenue Pathway / Bike Lanes $$$ AC-15
Walsh Creek
Neighborhood
Pathway3
Walsh Creek, from Cartagena Way to Via
Bellagio Multi-use path and pedestrian bridge Pathway $$$

1. An enhanced crosswalk includes additional safety treatments such as curb extensions, reduced curb radii, or pedestrian refuge islands. These enhancements are recommended to address safety concerns such as higher speed or volume roadways, wider roadways, and roadways where motorists are less likely to yield to pedestrians. Specific recommendations are included in Appendix C-C. For additional information on the application of these enhancements, refer to the Crosswalk Policy of this plan.

2. Source: American Canyon Circulation Element, 2013. This project was developed through separate and ongoing efforts and was evaluated for prioritization due to local importance.

3. Source: American Canyon Bicycle Plan, 2012

4. These projects are pedestrian projects that are referenced in other planning documents. These projects were not evaluated during the scope of this Plan; however, they may be pursued through separate and ongoing efforts.
$$$ - high cost (>$1million); $$ - medium cost ($100k-$1million); $ - low cost (<$100k) Source: Fehr & Peers, 2016
The trail system in American Canyon is a key asset to the community and several recommendations for new trail segments, including neighborhood connections and cut-throughs, shown in Exhibit AC-5, were received during the public workshops for this plan. When possible, these recommendations should be considered as trail segments such as those in AC-10, AC-15, and AC-18 are developed and implemented. Coordination with regional trail planning will also help ensure planned trail segments such as the Vine Trail and River to Ridge trail have community support and include local wayfinding.

Specific locations for sidewalk maintenance needs were noted during the walking audits and are included in project AC-6. Ongoing monitoring of sidewalks will ensure a broad and continuous application of sidewalk maintenance citywide. These efforts could be coordinated with accessibility updates for priority sidewalks and curb ramps in the ADA Transition Plan, to include consideration of locations surveyed as part of the 2015 ADA Transition Plan Update. Suggested 823

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
29 tracking methods in the Update will ensure efficient use of construction resources and implementation of the ADA Transition Plan by documenting ADA compliance in the field.

Supporting Programs and Policies
Key program and policy recommendations that complement the engineering-related projects are shown below in Table AC-6. Many of these recommendations draw from the benchmarking exercise completed at the onset of the plan development. The recommendations encompass education, encouragement, and enforcement activities.

TABLE AC-6: AMERICAN CANYON PROGRAM AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Program or Policy Recommendations
Education and Encouragement
Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Coordination
Coordinate with the Napa County Office of Education to continue SRTS programs in the city, and determine feasibility of implementing recommendations under the Safe Routes to School Support Program in the Countywide Implementation chapter of the countywide plan.

Safety and Enforcement
Law Enforcement for Pedestrian Safety
Coordinate with NVTA to provide resources to officers in American Canyon on pedestrian safety enforcement principles and education outreach efforts to align with Countywide collision reduction goals. Consider designating traffic safety officers who conduct pedestrian related enforcement activities, such as monitoring school circulation activity during pick up and drop off periods.

Determine feasibility of enforcement recommendations in Countywide Implementation chapter of the countywide plan.

NVTA Safety Campaign Coordinate with NVTA on the media safety campaign that NVTA is pursuing, as an opportunity for education by distributing pedestrian safety pamphlets in-lieu of, or in addition to, citations.

Maintenance
Repair of Sidewalks, Crosswalks, and
Curb Ramps
 Continue to regularly improve and repair uneven sidewalk, broken asphalt in crosswalks, and install new curb ramps as part of the Citywide Sidewalk Maintenance Program in Table AC-5. This effort could complement the update schedule for curb ramps and sidewalks in the ADA Transition Plan and/or a trip and fall monitoring program.  Determine feasibility of adding a page to the city’s website to allow residents and visitors to more easily report and track hazards in the public right-of-way and to ensure all necessary sidewalk repairs are included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This could be coordinated with use of the “SeeClickFix” app to report maintenance needs for pedestrian-related pavement markings and traffic control devices. 824

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
30 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE AC-6: AMERICAN CANYON PROGRAM AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Program or Policy Recommendations
Overgrown Vegetation on Sidewalks and
Planting Strips
Continue to ensure citywide that landscapes at maturity do not interfere with safe sight distances for bicycle, pedestrian, or vehicular traffic; do not conflict with overhead lights, traffic controls, traffic signage, utility lines or poles, or walkway lights; and, do not block bicycle or pedestrian ways. Develop ordinance to encourage adjacent property owners to maintain landscaped areas with live and healthy plant materials, replace plant materials when necessary to maintain full function and aesthetics; to water, weed, prune, fertilize and keep sidewalks and planting strips litter free.

Engineering and Design Standards
ADA Compliance Tracking Program
Determine feasibility of tracking ADA improvements and updates using practices recommended as part of the ADA Transition Plan update, to be coordinated by the ADA Coordinator. Maintain and update GIS database of ADA curb ramps and sidewalk in the publicright-of way to align with priority schedule in the updated ADA Transition Plan.

Crosswalk Guidelines
Implement Crosswalk Guidelines, included in Appendix D of the Countywide Pedestrian Plan, to enable the city to respond to crosswalk requests in a manner that improves pedestrian accessibility and maintains public safety. Reference Guidelines when making decisions about where standard crosswalks (two, parallel white stripes) can be marked; where crosswalks with special treatments, such as high-visibility crosswalks, flashing beacons and other special features, should be employed; and where crosswalks will not be marked due to safety concerns resulting from volume, speed, or sight distance issues.

Place Making and Complete Streets
Site Plan Review Checklist
Create checklist for development review to ensure site plans include considerations for pedestrian access, safety and sidewalk activation (including considerations for building frontage location, pocket parks, small plazas, or mini shops and evaluation of pedestrian circulation in parking lots). Include items from MTC’s Routine Accommodation Checklist for projects in the public right-ofway to ensure routine application of the Complete Streets policy. MTC’s checklist can be found here:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/Routine_Accommodation_checklist.pdf 825

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
31 Next Steps
Funding Sources
According to American Canyon staff, funding is the greatest obstacle to implementing pedestrian projects. For example, there is no specific funding source set aside for the Traffic Calming Program. While sidewalk projects do not have a set annual budget, they tend to comprise approximately $100,000 of the annual capital improvements program funding. The majority of sidewalk projects in the city are funded through grants in addition to local funds.

Federal, state, regional, county and local organizations provide funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects and programs. The most recent Federal surface transportation funding program, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), was signed into law in July 2012. Details in this section are provided for funding programs that are used to fund scheduled projects through December 2020.

FAST Act funding is distributed to Federal and state surface transportation funds. Most of these resources are available to American Canyon through Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA).

Table AC-7 summarizes the applicability of these various funding sources to projects, planning efforts, and programs proposed in this plan. Detailed descriptions of the grant funding sources are presented in Appendix B of the countywide plan. The most applicable funding sources for the improvements recommended by this plan are the Active Transportation Program, One Bay Area Grants, and Highway Safety Improvement Program, and Transportation Development Act Article 3 funds.
826

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
32 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE AC-7: REGIONAL FUNDING SOURCE APPLICABILITY MATRIX Funding Source Class I MultiUse Path
Pedestrian
Projects Other Projects
Planning
and
Programs
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Grants
Caltrans Transportation Planning Grants
Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
California State Parks Recreational Trails
Program (RTP)
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCP)
Active Transportation Program (ATP), including
Safe Routes to School
Transportation Development Act Article 3
(TDA-3)
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) Transportation Fund for Clean Air
Notes:

1. indicate that funds may be used for this category; indicate that funds may not be used for this category, and indicate that funds may be used, though restrictions apply.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2016.

Cost of the Pedestrian Network
Table AC-8 presents unit costs for standard pedestrian treatments, estimated using an ATP Cost Estimating Tool developed for the Alameda County Transportation Commission. The tool is used to estimate costs for bicycle and pedestrian projects at the network planning scale during the development of active transportation plans and in a sketch-planning capacity for a bicycle and/or pedestrian project. The costs shown represent the total construction for a typical treatment of that type, including engineering, design, construction management, mobilization, traffic control and general contingency. Contingency for drainage and utility relocation was also included for relevant treatment types, such as curb extensions. These numbers do not include right-of-way costs or inflation. 827

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
33 TABLE AC-8: GENERALIZED UNIT COSTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Facility Type Cost Unit
Curb Extension/Bulbout $56,000 Each
Pedestrian Refuge Island $10,000 Each
Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) $45,000 Per Crosswalk
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) $144,000 Per Crosswalk
Customized Pedestrian Wayfinding Signs $2,000 Per Sign

1. Costs reflect capital costs plus contingency for engineering design, environmental, construction management, mobilization, traffic control, and contingency.

Source: Fehr & Peers, ATP Cost Estimating Tool, 2016.

Project-level cost estimates were prepared for Tier One projects determined in the previous section of this plan, while the remaining projects were assigned a ranking in Table AC-5 to indicate an estimated range of cost level.

Prepared cost estimates, included in Appendix AC-D, include unit costs for individual improvements within the project and adjustments to account for traffic control, construction management, and mobilization. Additional factors were also used for overall contingency, engineering design and environmental. A summary of the estimates is shown in Table AC-9 below.

TABLE AC-9: TIER ONE PROJECT SUMMARY COSTS
Project Total Cost1
AC-2: SR 29 Traffic Calming and James Road Sidewalks $1,035,000 AC-3: Donaldson Way Improvements $570,900
AC-4: Safe Routes to School Improvements $356,600

1. Costs reflect capital costs plus contingency for engineering design, construction management, mobilization, traffic control, and contingency.

Source: Fehr & Peers, ATP Cost Estimating Tool, 2016.

Note: For an estimated cost for the SR 29 Pedestrian Crossings (AC-7), which was developed through separate planning efforts, please refer to the Countywide Plan Vision 2040.

Countywide Performance Metrics and Evaluation
NVTA intends to monitor progress on the implementation of this plan over time. The Countywide Implementation chapter of the Countywide Pedestrian Plan summarizes key performance goals and associated metrics for this plan’s implementation.
828

AMERICAN CANYON PLAN
34 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
American Canyon Appendix
AC-A Benchmarking Table
AC-B Existing Pedestrian Policies
AC-C Detailed Project Lists and Prioritization
AC-D Cost Estimates
AC-E Plan Adoption Resolution
829
APPENDIX AC-A: BENCHMARKING TABLE
1 Appendix AC-A: Benchmarking Table

AMERICAN CANYON PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark American Canyon Current Practice Best Practice Examples ADA Transition Plan
Compliance with the Americans with
Disability Act (ADA) guidelines is
important not only to enhance
community accessibility, but also to
improve walking conditions for all
pedestrians.

An ADA Transition Plan sets forth the
process for bringing public facilities into
compliance with ADA regulations.

Key Strength
American Canyon uses Caltrans standards for ADA curb
ramps, which require curbramps with grooves facing
towards the center of the intersection at all street
crossings and curb returns. The standards do not include truncated domes or directional curb ramps.

The city has an ADA Transition Plan from 2008 that
includes an inventory of needed improvements for
deficient sidewalks and curb ramps in the public right-ofway along priority corridors.  Consider tracking ADA improvements using
practices recommended in ADA Transition Plan,
updated as part of this plan, to be implemented
by the ADA Coordinator
 Implement directional curb ramps where practical
and truncated domes in all cases. Review and
revise standard drawings to align with PROWAG
recommendations.

Traffic Calming Programs
Traffic Calming Programs and policies set
forth a systematic and consistent
approach for addressing neighborhood
requests and approvals, as well as
standard treatments and criteria.

Key Strength
American Canyon has a Traffic Calming Program that
outlines the steps for a community interested in traffic calming, defines the various traffic calming options and appropriate uses, and establishes guidelines for installing the traffic calming measures. There is no specific funding set aside for these improvements.
 Include a line item in the annual budget to create
a formal Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program (NTMP) to allow additional traffic
calming implementation and an inventory of
improvements.
 Encourage the routine use of traffic calming
measures beyond speed humps.

Complete Streets Policy
Routine Accommodations or Complete
Streets Policies accommodate all modes
of travel and travelers of all ages and
abilities.

Key Strength
The city’s Complete Streets policy, adopted in 2012,
includes principles, implementation strategies, and
exemptions from complete streets requirements. As
part of implementation, the City of American Canyon
Open Space Advisory Committee, serving as the city’s
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee per
Resolution 2010-115, reviews transportation projects to provide recommendations regarding Complete Streets.

Routine data collection is also required to evaluate how well all users are being served by the transportation
network.
 Consider maintaining a GIS database for data
collected as part of the policy evaluation, to
include pedestrian volumes collected in this plan.
 Develop a checklist for project review to ensure
routine application of the Complete Streets policy.
 Consider using multi-modal level of service
criteria.
830
APPENDIX AC-A: BENCHMARKING TABLE
2 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan

AMERICAN CANYON PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark American Canyon Current Practice Best Practice Examples Public Involvement
Responding to public concerns through
public feedback mechanisms represents
a more proactive and inclusive approach
to pedestrian safety compared to a
conventional approach of reacting to
pedestrian collisions. Advisory
committees serve as important sounding
boards for new policies, programs, and
practices. A citizens’ pedestrian advisory
committee is also a key component of
proactive public involvement for
identifying pedestrian safety issues and
opportunities.

Key Strength
American Canyon residents (or visitors) may file requests for safety improvements on city streets via phone or
email. Additionally, the city’s “SeeClickFix” app allows people to report non-emergency issues on a web-based
map of the city. Residents can submit information
directly to the city regarding damaged sidewalk,
deficient lighting, or other non-emergency issues.

Public involvement occurs through several groups
including the Parks and Community Services
Commission, the Open Space Advisory Committee
(OSAC), and stakeholders from the Senior Center. The
OSAC serves as the city’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee per Resolution 2010-115, and is involved
with site plan review and the review of transportation
projects to provide Complete Streets recommendations.
 Consider adding a page to the city’s website
dedicated to receiving public input regarding
transportation issues and a subsection for
pedestrian topics. This category or subcategory
may allow residents to file comments or
complaints for traffic control devices or
dangerous conditions. Encourage broad use of
the “SeeClickFix” app for pedestrian issue and
opportunity input.
 Consider creating a formal Active Transportation
Advisory Committee (ATAC) for city-specific
issues. This Committee could include the
American Canyon representative on the ATAC for
NVTA.
 Consider organizing neighborhood groups that
identify street needs, including greening and
traffic calming.

Pedestrian Volumes
Pedestrian volume data is important for
prioritizing projects, developing collision
rates, and determining appropriate
pedestrian infrastructure.

Enhancement
While American Canyon has collected pedestrian and
bicycle counts for some projects, the city does not
regularly collect pedestrian or bicycle counts, nor does it require that bicycle or pedestrian counts be collected
with manual intersection counts.
 Use collected volumes in this plan to identify
pedestrian nodes in the next update to the
General Plan
 Routinely collect pedestrian volumes with all
transportation impact studies (TIAs).
 Geo-code existing and future pedestrian volume
data with GIS software along with other data such
as pedestrian control devices and collisions to
analyze data for trends or hotspots related to
pedestrian safety.

Speed Surveys and Speed Limits
Pedestrian fatality rates increase
exponentially with vehicle speed. Thus,
reducing vehicle speeds in pedestrian
zones may be one of the most important
strategies for enhancing pedestrian
safety.

Enhancement
In American Canyon, speed surveys are conducted in
response to reported concerns, frequent collisions, or at the request of citizens or the Napa County Sheriff’s
deputies, who patrol the streets in the city.
 Proactively consider pedestrian volumes when
setting speed limits.
 Explore the use of reduced speed limits in school
zones.
 Ensure design standards in pedestrian areas do
not contribute to a routine need for traffic
calming.
831
APPENDIX AC-A: BENCHMARKING TABLE
3 AMERICAN CANYON PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark American Canyon Current Practice Best Practice Examples Identifying Crossing Barriers
Crossing barriers such as railroads,
freeways, and major arterials may
discourage or even prevent pedestrian
access. Additionally, crossing barriers are
often associated with vehicle-pedestrian
collisions. Identifying barriers and
developing alternate methods of crossing
or improving designated crossings, as
well as preventing new barriers, is
essential for improving walkability and
pedestrian safety.

Enhancement
American Canyon does not have a policy in place for
identifying pedestrian barriers, but city staff listed
several barriers, including SR 29, the California Northern railroad, running parallel to SR29 from south city limits to Napa Junction Rd. and continuing to the west north of City Hall, and American Canyon Creek running through
the Vintage Ranch neighborhood. The Vine Trail efforts
include looking for opportunities to reduce those
barriers through additional crossings, and a project to identify three overcrossings over SR 29 on the 2015
Napa Countywide Transportation Plan Unconstrained
Project List addresses that barrier indirectly.
 Identify and create a comprehensive inventory of
pedestrian barriers, along with appropriate
remedies or projects.

Design and Development Standards
Design policies and development
standards can improve the pedestrian
walking experience, encourage walking,
enhance economic vitality, and offer
funding opportunities for pedestrian
improvements.

Enhancement
American Canyon does not have citywide design
recommendations outside of this plan for walking
facilities. Several local plans, including the Watson Ranch Specific Plan Draft (2014) and the county-generated plan for SR 29, do support pedestrian connectivity.
 Use elements of the design guidelines presented
in this plan as part of the development review
process.
 Develop a Streetscape Master Plan for the city.

Bicycle Parking Ordinance
Bicyclists become pedestrians after
parking their bicycles. Safe and
convenient bicycle parking is essential for
encouraging bicycle travel (especially inlieu of vehicle travel).

Enhancement
American Canyon’s municipal code has a bicycle parking
requirement for commercial and employment areas.

According to the municipal code, “bicycle parking should be located in highly visible locations and should be
lockable.”1
 Consider modifying the bicycle parking ordinance
to distinguish and provide for both long-term and
short-term bicycle parking. Include requirements
for rack placement to ensure a convenient
location and adequate pedestrian clearances.

1 American Canyon Municipal Code, 19.21.050 Bicycle parking requirements: http://qcode.us/codes/americancanyon/ 832
APPENDIX AC-A: BENCHMARKING TABLE
4 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan

AMERICAN CANYON PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark American Canyon Current Practice Best Practice Examples Pedestrian Safety Education Program
Education is a critical element for a
complete and balanced approach to
improving pedestrian safety. Education
campaigns may target pedestrians of all
ages.

Enhancement
In accordance with policies in the Napa Bike Plan and the General Plan, NVTA is planning to pursue grant funding
through the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) for a media safety campaign for motorists. The campaign will
use Pittsburgh’s Drive With Care campaign for
inspiration, which characterizes bicyclists and
pedestrians as our firefighters, doctors, and neighbors and uses the slogan “someone you care about rides a
bike”. The OTS will release a call for projects around
November 2015 for their 2017 funding cycle.
 Coordinate with NVTA on pursuing a media safety
campaign, and consider the following methods to
distribute the campaign in American Canyon:
o Include advertisements on buses and bus
shelters, through SRTS and in-school
curriculum, community school courses,
public service announcements, and/or
brochures distributed by law enforcement,
among many other strategies.
 Pedestrian safety brochures could be distributed
to the public independent of the media campaign
to promote walking to city events.

Institutional Coordination
Institutional issues for pedestrian
planning/design may refer to adopted or
informal impediments. This may be
policies, practices, funding issues or even
stakeholders that make it challenging to
improve walking in American Canyon.

Institutional coordination associated with
multiple agencies is necessary because of
non-local control of right-of-way and
differing policies regarding pedestrian
accommodation.

Enhancement
American Canyon shares jurisdiction over components of
the transportation network with Caltrans.

The city’s working relationship with Caltrans was a
challenge in the past, but it has been improving in recent years. The city has also coordinated effectively with area schools to pursue Safe Routes to School grants.

According to staff, funding is the biggest obstacle the city faces in project implementation.
 Continue to seek opportunities to collaborate
with local transit agencies to improve pedestrian
safety around transit stops.
 Proactively seek opportunities to collaborate with
Caltrans and/or local jurisdictions to improve
pedestrian safety along SR 29.
 Reference the public involvement, analysis, and
prioritization efforts of this plan when applying
for grants to fund the top projects
833
APPENDIX AC-A: BENCHMARKING TABLE
5 AMERICAN CANYON PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark American Canyon Current Practice Best Practice Examples Safe Routes to School
Safe-Routes-to-School (SRTS) programs
encourage children to safely walk or
bicycle to school. The programs are
important both for increasing physical
activity (and reducing childhood obesity)
and for reducing morning traffic
associated with school drop-off. Funding
for educational programs and/or
infrastructure projects is available at the
state and federal levels.

Enhancement
The Napa County Office of Education (NCOE) currently
has a three year grant to administer a Safe Routes to
School (SRTS) Program across the county through 2016.

Program leaders have a goal of reaching every interested school by the end of the grant term, and plan to work
with Canyon Oaks Elementary School and Donaldson
Way Elementary School in 2015.

The program includes events such as Walk and Roll to
School Day, Bike Rodeos, and Safe Walking education
presentations for students in grades K-3. Brochures are handed out during this program as well as at community
events and PTA/parent meetings. Parent presentations
include a review of pedestrian laws and ordinances.

Although materials for these programs are available each year for schools across the county, reaching schools on a weekly or yearly basis has not been possible due to
understaffing and scarcity of volunteers.

The American Canyon Public Works Department created
a map of suggested routes to American Canyon High
School in 2010 that includes American Canyon transit
stop locations.
 Pursue SRTS grant funding for pedestrian
infrastructure projects.
 Seek partners to form school-specific committees
of community agencies, parents, advocates, city
staff, community health representatives, and
other stakeholders to administer SRTS programs
at each school in American Canyon. Hold regular
meetings to maintain stakeholder involvement.
 Use distances from schools from parent survey
results to determine feasibility of rolling out
Walking School Bus program for schools in Napa.
 Coordinate with NVTA to seek additional funding
for SRTS.

Collision Reporting
Identifying and responding to collision
patterns on a regular basis is an
important reactive approach to
pedestrian safety (which may be
combined with proactive measures).

Opportunity
American Canyon does not have a regular practice of
reviewing collision data. Engineering staff review
collision reports as needed on a case-by-case basis. City engineers previously received regular reports from
SWITRS, but this data now goes straight to the Police
Department.
 Geo-coding (mapping) and comprehensive
monitoring using Crossroads software would
allow for more proactive pedestrian safety
projects and best practices such as collision typing
for countermeasure selection. GIS efforts may be
funded through an Office of Traffic Safety grant.
 Pedestrian volume data could be used to prioritize
collision locations based on collision rates
(collisions/daily pedestrian volume). This could
lead to a proactive approach to identify
treatments and program city CIP funding.

Volunteers can collect pedestrian volumes and
other data at collision locations.
834
APPENDIX AC-A: BENCHMARKING TABLE
6 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan

AMERICAN CANYON PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark American Canyon Current Practice Best Practice Examples Pedestrian-Oriented Traffic Warrants /
Traffic Control Devices
Providing all-way stop or signal control at
an intersection may improve pedestrian
safety by reducing speeds and controlling
pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. The MUTCD
defines warrants for installing signals and
stop signs.

The 2014 California Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requires
the installation of countdown pedestrian
signals for all crosswalks at new or
modified signals where the pedestrian
interval is more than 7 seconds.

Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) can
reduce conflicts between turning vehicles
and pedestrians by providing pedestrians
with a “head start” signal timing before
vehicles on the parallel street are
allowed to proceed through an
intersection.

Opportunity
American Canyon follows MUTCD requirements for both
stop sign and signal warrants.. Additionally, there are some all-way stop control intersections in American
Canyon that were based on engineering judgment rather
than MUTCD recommendations.

There is not a comprehensive inventory of signs,
markings, and signals in American Canyon. Partial
inventories are available through specific projects.

American Canyon does not have any LPIs installed.
 Consider developing city-specific signal and stop
sign warrants that are pedestrian friendly for
locations where pedestrian safety is a concern.

Best practices for stop-sign warrant application
include:
o Requiring a collision history of three instead
of five years based on routine
underreporting
o Reducing traffic volume thresholds based on
latent demand
o Providing consideration forschool children,
pedestrians and traffic speeds
 Expand the GIS-based inventory created with this
plan to include pedestrian-related markings and
traffic signals with pedestrian facilities
 Consider installing LPIs in areas where vehicle
yielding may be an issue, providing a right-turnon-red restriction as necessary per recent research findings2.

Inventory of Pedestrian Facilities
A GIS-based sidewalk inventory enables
project identification and prioritization,
as well as project coordination with new
development, roadway resurfacing, etc.

Opportunity
The city does not have a GIS inventory of sidewalks or
other pedestrian facilities, although developments built after 1996 all have sidewalks (often only one side of the street).

While sidewalk projects do not have a set annual budget, they tend to comprise approximately $100,000 of the
annual capital improvements program funding. The
majority of sidewalk projects in the City are funded
through grants in addition to local funds.
 Expand the GIS-based facility inventory, created
as part of this plan, to include informal pathways
and key pedestrian opportunity areas in the city.

2 Hubbard, S, Bullock, D and J. Thai, Trial Implementation of a Leading Pedestrian Interval: Lessons Learned, ITE Journal, October 2008, pp. 32-41. 835
APPENDIX AC-A: BENCHMARKING TABLE
7 AMERICAN CANYON PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark American Canyon Current Practice Best Practice Examples Walking Audit Program
Walking audits provide an interactive
opportunity to receive feedback from key
stakeholders about the study area as well
as discuss potential solutions and their
feasibility.

Opportunity
American Canyon has not conducted pedestrian walking
audits before this plan.
 Conduct regular walking audits as part of a
citywide safety program for pedestrians. This
effort could complement a “trip and fall” program
or health-oriented programs within the City, as
well as distribution of the media campaign NVTA
is pursuing.

Crosswalk Design Guidelines
A formal policy for crosswalk installation,
removal, and enhancement provides
transparency in decision-making and
creates a consistent application of
treatments citywide.

Opportunity
The city currently does not have a crosswalk policy and makes decisions regarding crosswalks on a case by case
basis.
 Consider adopting a crosswalk policy as part of
this plan that reflects best practices and recent
research to include criteria for installing crosswalk
enhancements such as flashing beacons,
advanced yield markings, or in-roadway
pedestrian signs.
 Include criteria in the crosswalk policy for
identifying, installing, and enhancing midblock
crossings where strong desire lines exist.

General Plan
Planning principles contained in a city’s
General Plan can provide an important
policy context for developing pedestrianoriented, walkable areas. Transitoriented development, higher densities, and mixed uses are important planning
tools for pedestrian-oriented areas.

A city’s General Plan is also a key
opportunity to establish the framework
for pedestrian orientation. The
Circulation Element of the General Plan
typically assigns roadway typologies,
which can include a layered network
approach with prioritized corridors for
transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and auto
travel.

Opportunity
According to the General Plan, residential densities in American Canyon are allowable up to 10-20 dwelling
units/acre. There are currently some areas of three-story residential development, and new four-story residential buildings have been approved but not built. Density is
concentrated along SR 29, although the Watson Ranch
development will also have higher density. The city does allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed-use (only
horizontal mixed-use has been built).

American Canyon does not officially designate
pedestrian nodes, but staff identified a pedestrian node in the commercial district of American Canyon at the
Walmart, a park, and a cluster of several other stores.

This node is part of a Priority Development Area (PDA)
which will eventually have more transit via enhanced bus service. Developments at Watson Ranch, the industrial
development south of the Airport, and the former
Eucalyptus Grove area will also have higher density and the potential to become pedestrian nodes.
 Identify pedestrian nodes in future updates to the
General Plan
 Consider defining opportunities for mixed-uses by
ordinance, particularly in pedestrian priority areas
identified in this plan. Identify future priority
areas in the city where varied densities could
accommodate or attract pedestrian activity.
 Consider relaxing auto Level of Service standards
in pedestrian-oriented overlay zones that align
with focus areas in this plan, and prioritizing
sidewalk improvement projects in these areas.
836
APPENDIX AC-A: BENCHMARKING TABLE
8 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan

AMERICAN CANYON PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark American Canyon Current Practice Best Practice Examples Historical Preservation
Historic walking routes, such as the
famous Freedom Trail in Boston,
encourage walking and enhance
economic vitality.

Opportunity
The ruins of the Standard Portland Cement Company
plant, while not eligible for the National or California Historic Register, are locally recognized in American
Canyon. The site is part of a preservation plan within the Watson Ranch Specific Plan Draft. The plan proposes a
mix of preservation approaches, including rehabilitation, alteration, addition, selective demolition, stabilization, and converting the uses to a winery, chapel, event space, farmers’ market, and beer garden.
 Develop a map to showcase natural or local sites
of interest, including the Portland Cement plant,
with a possible walking route between the sites.

Maps of the tour route and historic
documentation materials could be made available
online and way-finding signs, maps, and plaques
could also be provided throughout the city.

Newspaper Rack Ordinance
Newspaper racks may obstruct walkways
and reduce accessibility and pedestrian
visibility when ordinances are not in
place. A Newspaper Rack Ordinance
improves the pedestrian realm by
reducing clutter and organizing sidewalk
zones and may detail size, location, and
maintenance requirements.

Opportunity
American Canyon’s Municipal Code does not include a
newspaper rack ordinance.
 Consider adopting a Newspaper Rack Ordinance
that specifies the number and location of
allowable newspaper racks and ensures the
maintenance of a clear pedestrian sidewalk area.

Sidewalk or Street Furniture Ordinance
Street furniture encourages walking by
accommodating pedestrians with
benches to rest along the route or wait
for transit; trash receptacles to maintain
a clean environment; street trees for
shade, etc. Uniform street furniture
requirements also enhance the design of
the pedestrian realm and may improve
economic vitality.

Opportunity
American Canyon’s Municipal Code does not include
street furniture requirements.
 Consider adopting a Street Furniture Ordinance to
include guidance for the design of transit stops
and locations for additional street furniture
amenities, other than those associated with
transit stops, as appropriate.
837
APPENDIX AC-A: BENCHMARKING TABLE
9 AMERICAN CANYON PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark American Canyon Current Practice Best Practice Examples Street Tree Ordinance
Street trees enhance the pedestrian
environment by providing shade and a
buffer from vehicles. Street trees may
also enhance property values, especially
in residential neighborhoods. However,
street trees, when improperly selected,
planted, or maintained, may cause
damage to adjacent public infrastructure
and/or utilities.

Opportunity American Canyon does not have a street tree ordinance.  Consider adopting a Street Tree Ordinance
including all development types, that specifies
where and how often street trees may be
planted/ replaced, and which types of trees are
appropriate.

Open Space Requirements
Residents typically rate open space as
among a jurisdiction’s key assets and
needs. Open space may encourage
walking, especially for recreational trips.

Opportunity
American Canyon does not have an open space
requirement, but subdivision requirements do contain
park dedication requirements.
 Consider open space requirements that include
provisions for pedestrian safety and accessibility.
 Consider modifying subdivision requirements to
include pedestrian provisions in park
requirements.

Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) programs encourage multi-modal
travel by incentivizing non-auto options.

As new development occurs, TDM
programs can be expanded, formalized,
and strengthened.

Opportunity
Employers of 50 or more full-time workers in the Bay
Area are required to provide commuter benefits to their employees through the Bay Area Commuter Benefits
Program, to comply with California SB 1339. The
Program includes benefit options like transit passes,
employer-provided shuttles, and vanpool subsidies.

Additionally, the NVTA has a contract with an agency in Solano to facilitate rideshare matching.
 As part of a comprehensive TDM program for
American Canyon:
o Hire or identify a part-time TDM
Coordinator
o Create a TDM program and
accompanying website with separate
pages for employees, residents, and
visitors.
o Develop a TDM policy which:
 Support the “Car Free” tourism program of the
Napa Valley Destination Council and NVTA, which
provides information to visitors so they can plan a
trip without relying solely on a car
838
APPENDIX AC-A: BENCHMARKING TABLE
10 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan

AMERICAN CANYON PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark American Canyon Current Practice Best Practice Examples Economic Vitality
Improving pedestrian safety and
walkability can enhance economic
vitality. Similarly, enhancing economic
vitality through innovative funding
options such as Business Improvement
Districts (BIDs), parking management,
and facade improvement programs can
lead to more active pedestrian areas and
encourage walking
Opportunity
American Canyon does not have a BID, façade
improvement program, or Downtown Parking District.
 Consider establishing Business Improvement
Districts that can fund streetscape and pedestrian
improvements.
 Consider implementing a façade improvement
program.

Coordination with Health Agencies
Involving non-traditional partners such as
public health agencies, pediatricians,
etc., in the planning or design of
pedestrian facilities may create
opportunities to be more proactive with
pedestrian safety, identify pedestrian
safety challenges and education venues,
and secure funding.

Additionally, under-reporting of
pedestrian-vehicle collisions could be a
problem that may be partially mitigated
by involving the medical community in
pedestrian safety planning.3
Opportunity
Live Healthy Napa County, a coalition of local community stakeholders for improving health in Napa County,
recently completed the Napa County Community Health
Improvement Plan (CHIP) in February 2014. The
document proposes a plan to address health issues
through new policies and health promotion strategies,
including transportation policies that encourage walking and biking.

American Canyon does not coordinate with health
agencies or professionals in the planning and design of pedestrian facilities.

Live Healthy Napa County completed the first ever Napa
County Community Obesity Prevention Plan (Jan. 2015)4,
which addresses the need to increase active
transportation options countywide.
 Seek opportunities to meet goals in the CHIP
related to active transportation, such as
improving the built environment by including
additional pedestrian infrastructure projects in
the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
 Involve the emergency response community in
pedestrian planning to encourage complete
reporting of pedestrian-vehicle collisions
 Involve health professionals in the development
review process, especially related to active
transportation improvements.
 Ensure consistency with the CHIP by seeking
partnership opportunities between health
agencies and Safe Routes to School to expand the
reach of education and promotion of walking.

3 Sciortino, S., Vassar, M., Radetsky, M. and M. Knudson, “San Francisco Pedestrian Injury Surveillance: Mapping, Underreporting, and Injury Severity in Police and Hospital Records,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Volume 37, Issue 6, November 2005, Pages 1102-1113 4 http://www.livehealthynapacounty.org/uploads/5/1/4/4/51449431/napa_county_community_obesity_prevention_plan_(final).pdf 839
APPENDIX AC-A: BENCHMARKING TABLE
11 AMERICAN CANYON PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS Plans, Policies, & Programs Benchmark American Canyon Current Practice Best Practice Examples Law Enforcement
Enforcement of pedestrian right-of-way
laws and speed limits is an important
complement to engineering treatments
and education programs.

Opportunity
The American Canyon Police Department has an active
Citizen Volunteer Program, which consists of local citizen volunteers that assist the Department at Elementary
Schools and with the Radar Trailer Program. There are
also 2 officers assigned to motorcycles for traffic
education and enforcement, as well as a community
resource officer and an officer assigned to the high
school. To date, law enforcement has not tracked
pedestrian-involved collision trends to relate them to
enforcement efforts.
 Implement sustained pedestrian safety
enforcement efforts and involve the media.

Coordinate with NVTA on the media campaign
that is being pursued, as an opportunity for
education by distributing pedestrian safety
pamphlets in-lieu of, or in addition to, citations.
 Coordinate with NVTA to provide resources to
officers on pedestrian safety principles/best
practices and education outreach efforts.
 Consider designating traffic safety officers who
conduct pedestrian related enforcement
activities, such as monitoring school circulation
activity.
 Consider tracking pedestrian-involved collisions
aligned with enforcement efforts to analyze
trends.

Coordination with Emergency Response
and Transit Providers
Emergency response vehicles require
special roadway design considerations
that sometimes conflict with bicycle and
pedestrian treatments. For example,
while pedestrians benefit from reduced
speeds of smaller curb radii, larger
vehicles such as fire trucks and buses
have more difficulty performing the turn
within the smaller space. These conflicts
require consensus building between the
city and the respective departments.

Opportunity
There is minimal coordination between transit planning
and pedestrian planning in American Canyon, and the
fire department is not involved in pedestrian projects.  Seek opportunities for technical collaboration and
funding with first responders and transit
providers.
 Consider pilot testing programs for transit and
emergency response and a more active
involvement in project review for small projects
and not just development projects.
 Explore ways to implement a Safe Routes to
Transit Program that prioritizes bike and
pedestrian access to major transit connection
points and transit centers.
840
APPENDIX AC-B: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN POLICIES
1 Appendix AC-B: Existing Pedestrian
Policies
The City of American Canyon has adopted policies as part of its general plan in support of walking. Most such policies appear in the circulation element of the general plan. Additional supportive policies appear in the land use and the parks and recreation elements. These policies typically express support for making walking safer, more convenient and more pleasant.

American Canyon General Plan
Circulation Element (2011)
 Policy 1.5 Neighborhood Context. Support safe, complete and well-connected neighborhood street, bicycle, and pedestrian access and connections … (page 17)  Policy 1.7 Complete Streets. Maintain and update street standards that provide for the design, construction, and maintenance of “Complete Streets.” The City’s Complete Streets shall enable safe, comfortable, and attractive access for all users: pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities ... (17)
 Policy 1.19 Complete Streets: When construction or modifying transportation facilities, consistent with Resolution 2012-72, “Complete Streets Policy of the City of American Canyon”, strive to provide for the movement of … and pedestrians appropriate for the road classification and adjacent land use. (20) o Evaluate projects to ensure that the safety, comfort, and convenience of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users are given equal level of consideration to motor vehicle operators. o Improve the existing street network to minimize travel times and improve mobility for transit, bicycle, and walking trips between new projects and surrounding land uses to reduce vehicle trips.  Policy 1.20 Neighborhood Context. Plan for safe, complete, well connected neighborhood streets. (21) o Modify the existing street network, where possible, to enable direct physical connections within and between neighborhoods, neighborhood-commercial areas, and commercial-commercial areas, including connections accessible only by pedestrians and bicycles on existing cul-de-sac streets. o Where feasible, provide pedestrian crosswalks on all intersection approaches. o Implement an ADA Transition Plan that focuses on compliant sidewalk improvements that provide continuous pedestrian and wheelchair access where compatible with the surrounding area. o Develop and implement a Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP) that indicates which streets in addition to arterials and collectors will install sidewalks and what other pedestrian facilities and amenities (such as ‘resting spots’) are needed to complete the pedestrian network. Sidewalk widths and shade 841
APPENDIX AC-B: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN POLICIES
2 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
coverage should also be addressed in the context of the adjacent land use, vehicle volumes, and vehicle speeds.
 Policy 1.35 General transit and pedestrian access. In reviewing designs of proposed developments, ensure that provision is made for access to current and future public transit services. In particular, pedestrian access to arterial and collector streets from subdivisions should not be impeded by continuous segments of sound walls. (25)
 Policy 2.1 Promote walking and bicycling. Promote walking and bike riding for transportation, recreation, and improvement of public environment and health. (29)
 Policy 2.2 Meet the needs of all users. Recognize and meet the mobility needs of persons using wheelchairs and those with other mobility limitations. (29)  Policy 2.3 Develop a safe and efficient non-motorized circulation system. Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between places. (29)
 Policy 2.6 Street trees for shade and comfort. Ensure that planting plans for street trees take into consideration shade and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists and traffic calming benefits.  Policy 2.7 Universal design. Provide pedestrian facilities that are acceptable to persons with disabilities and ensure that roadway improvement projects address accessibility by using universal design concepts. (30)
 Policy 2.17 Pedestrian access to shopping destinations. Install clearly marked crosswalks at intersections near all commercial uses, as well as clearly marked pedestrian paths within parking areas. Mid-block crossing are discouraged. However, if conditions warrant and are approved by City Engineer, crosswalks and signage indicating pedestrian activity should be installed at mid-block entrances where existing commercial uses are adjacent to other high-intensity uses, such as parks and schools where necessary for safety. Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossing over State Route 29. (32)  Policy 2.18 Pedestrian connections to employment destinations. Encourage the development of a network of continuous walkways within new commercial, town center, public, and industrial uses to improve workers’ ability to walk safely around, to, and from their workplaces. Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossings over State Route 29. (32)  Policy 2.19 Pedestrian connections to schools. Continue developing the existing network of walkways between schools and residential uses, and encourage the development of new continuous walkways between schools and residential areas. Where possible route pedestrians to grade separated crossing over State Route 29. (32)
 Policy 3.11 Development that supports transit. Ensure that new development is designed to make transit a viable transportation choice for residents. Design options include:
o Link neighborhoods to bus stops by continuous sidewalks or pedestrian paths. (37) 842
APPENDIX AC-B: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN POLICIES
3 Land Use Element (2010)
The Land Use Element of the American Canyon General Plan encourages the use of pedestrian-oriented amenities throughout the City and calls for connections between residential developments and community areas through a continuous pedestrian network of sidewalks, trails, and pathways. Design principles for commercial development to promote pedestrian activity and a “village” environment include pedestrian-oriented buildings, architectural character, clearly defined pedestrian access to parking areas, pedestrian plazas and open space, pedestrianoriented signage, and pedestrian paths to adjacent districts. Separate development principles are established for the planned Town Center Core Area to establish a true “downtown” for American Canyon and “require that the Town Center Core Area provide a pedestrian-oriented, “village” environment, including a plaza or town square as a gathering place for community activities.”
Parks and Recreation Element (1994)
 Policy 7.2.6 Link residential and commercial land uses by pedestrian trails (page 7-7)  Policy 7.3.2 Designate status and approximate locations for the following types of trails in the Trails Master Plan:
o Urban Trail – Urban trails are multi-purpose pedestrian/bicycle trails that connect residential areas to regional and community parks, schools, and commercial and industrial employment areas… o Rural Trail – Rural trails are multi-purpose equestrian/pedestrian/bicycle trails that are typically unpaved and used primarily for recreational purposes…(7-8)  Implementation Program I7.10 Include a requirement in the new Zoning Ordinance that all development projects provide onsite, pedestrian-oriented open space facilities or pay in-lieu fees… (7-19) American Canyon Bicycle Plan
The Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency (NCTPA) developed the Countywide Bicycle Plan Update in 2012, with individual plans for each jurisdiction in Napa. Relevant policy statements are listed below and those that reference policies from local general plan documents are indicated in bold.

In addition to the Policies listed in the County Bicycle Plan, the American Canyon Bicycle Plan includes the following City-specific policies:
 AD-1.a: Create a bicycle and pedestrian friendly and convenient community. This includes the development of an integrated web of bicycle and pedestrian paths, linking river to ridge from east to west, while also offering north to south alternatives other than Highway29. Connect residential areas, schools, parks, recreation activities, open space, and commercial, retail, and industrial areas, public areas, and transportation hubs. (Policy11.2 – Parks and Community Services Master Plan) (page 16) 843
APPENDIX AC-B: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN POLICIES
4 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
 AC-1.b: Provide for safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle routes to local schools. (Policy 11.3 - Parks and Community Services Master Plan) (page 16)
 AC-1.c Create regional access – Connect to other Napa and Solano County destinations, including access to Regional transit. Complete the San Francisco Bay Trail through American anyon as close to wetlands and Napa River as possible. Complete American Canyon’s portion of the Vine Trail. (Policy 11.4 – Parks and Community Services Master Plan) (page 17)
 AC-1.d: Communicate and coordinate with the NCTPA Bicycle Advisory Committee, NCTPA,N apa Valley Vine Trail Coalition, Napa County Bicycle Coalition, Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District and other related agencies and organizations to work collaboratively on projects that enhance connectivity for commuter and recreational bicyclists and pedestrians. (Policy 11.5 – Parks and Community Services Master Plan) (page 17)
 AC-1.e Develop a River to Ridge Trail from Wetlands Edge Road, along Eucalyptus Drive, to the Newell Open Space Preserve. (Policy 11.8 – Parks and Community Services Master Plan) (page 17)  AC-1.f: Improve east-west connectivity with separated grade pedestrian/cyclist crossings, improved crosswalks; stop light timing, and other enhancements that make it safer for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross Broadway (SR 29). (Policy 11.9 – Parks and Community Services Master Plan) (page 17)  AC-1.g: Create a physical connection to our historic watershed, establish bicycle and pedestrian access along the Napa River, American Canyon Creek, Rio Del Mar Creek, and Newell Creek. (Policy 11.12 – Parks and Community Services Master Plan) (page 17)
 AC-8.a: Develop connections wherever possible between pedestrian/bicycle circulation corridors and parks and open space opportunities. (Policy 11.6 – Parks and Community Services Master Plan) (page 21)  AC-8.b: Ensure that all new development provides bicycle and pedestrian connectivity through the use of sidewalks, Class I multi-use paths and Class II bike lanes. (Policy 11.11 – Parks and Community Services Master Plan) (page 21)
844
APPENDIX AC-C: DETAILED PROJECT LIST AND PRIORITIZATION 1 Appendix AC-C: Detailed Project List and
Prioritization

AMERICAN CANYON PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT LIST
ID Roadway Limits or Intersection Recommendations Infrastructure Category

TIER ONE
AC-2
SR 29 Traffic Calming
and James Road
Sidewalks
James Road,
Melvin Road,
Cassavre Drive,
Theresa Avenue
Napa Junction Road to American
Canyon Road
 Traffic calming study to determine potential
measures to discourage northbound and
southbound cut through traffic
Traffic calming
James Road Donaldson Way to American
Canyon Road
Near-Term:
 Sidewalk on east side of street from Crawford
Way to American Canyon Road
Sidewalks
Medium-Term:
 Sidewalk on east side of street north of
Crawford Way
Sidewalks
Long-Term:
 Sidewalk on west side of street between
Crawford Way and Donaldson Way as
modifications to properties are permitted
Sidewalks
AC-3
Donaldson Way
Improvements
Donaldson Way
SR 29 to James Road  Sidewalk on south side of street Sidewalk James Road to Andrew Road  Tree trimming on the south side of the street for sidewalk clearance Maintenance
Donaldson Way at Andrew Road
(Intersection)
 Marked crosswalks on all legs with advanced
stop bars Crossing treatments
Carolyn Drive to Andrew Road
 Sidewalk on south side of street Sidewalk
 Sidewalk on north side of street as modifications
to properties are permitted Sidewalks
845
APPENDIX AC-C: DETAILED PROJECT LIST AND PRIORITIZATION 2 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan

AMERICAN CANYON PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT LIST
ID Roadway Limits or Intersection Recommendations Infrastructure Category AC-4
Safe Routes to School
Improvements
Donaldson Way Donaldson Way at Elliott Drive
(Intersection)
 Single lane roundabout with yellow school
crosswalks
 Relocated bus stop from southeast corner to
near or far side of proposed roundabout
Crossing treatments
Traffic calming
Benton Way Benton Way at Chaucer Lane
(Intersection)  High visibility crosswalk on west leg Crossing improvements AC-7
SR-29 Pedestrian
Crossings2
SR-29 SR-29 at American Canyon Road
and Rio Del Mar
 Grade-separated pedestrian crossings at the
noted locations Pedestrian overcrossing

TIER TWO
AC-1
Eucalyptus Drive/Theresa
Avenue Intersection,
Complete Streets (No. 2
Constrained CTP
Project)3
Eucalyptus Drive Eucalyptus Drive at Theresa
Avenue (Intersection)
 Roundabout (As part of Eucalyptus Realignment
Project) Traffic calming
AC-5
Elliott Drive Traffic
Calming
Elliott Drive
Donaldson Way to Crawford Way
 Neck downs every 300’ with access for bikes Traffic calming  “Wrong Way” bicycle signs on curb extensions
for opposing direction Signing & Striping
Elliott Drive at Crawford Way
(Intersection)
 Traffic circle with 20’-40’ red curb along Elliott
Drive at each corner
 Marked crosswalk on north leg with refuge
island
Traffic calming
Crossing treatments
Elliott Drive at Larkspur Street
(Intersection)
 Traffic circle with 20’-40’ red curb along Elliott
Drive at each corner Traffic calming
846
APPENDIX AC-C: DETAILED PROJECT LIST AND PRIORITIZATION 3 AMERICAN CANYON PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT LIST
ID Roadway Limits or Intersection Recommendations Infrastructure Category Larkspur Street to American
Canyon Road
 Raised median with refuge at American Canyon
Road
 Red curb with restriped bike lanes and travel
lanes to accommodate raised median
 Bus stop relocation on east side of street at
American Canyon Road to north of Larkspur
Street
Crossing treatments
Transit
AC-6
American Canyon Road
Improvements
American Canyon
Road
American Canyon Road at Elliott
Drive (Intersection)
Near-Term:
 Curb extensions on all corners with directional
ramps
Crossing treatments
ADA ramps
 Median refuge for east leg crosswalk
Crossing treatments
 High visibility crosswalk on west and east legs
West of Elliott Drive
Long-Term:
 Feasibility study to convert roadway to linear
park on north side of median with access to S.F.

Bay Trail system with traffic consolidated on
south side of median
Pathway
Traffic calming
PREVIOUSLY PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS1
AC-8
SR 29 Gateway (No. 7
Constrained CTP Project)
SR 29
American Canyon Road to Napa
Junction Road
 Multi-use pathway and Class IV bikeway
installation on both sides of street (as part of 6-
lane modified boulevard design)
 Median refuges and marked crosswalks on all
legs of signalized intersections
Sidewalks
Crossing treatments
Pathway

RECOMMENDED ADDITIONS TO CTP PROJECT
SR 29 at Donaldson Way
(Intersection)
 Feasibility assessment for reduced curb radii
 Directional curb ramps
Crossing treatments
ADA ramps
AC-9
Vine Trail Railroad
Crossing3
SR-29 SR-29 at Paoli Loop Road  Grade-separated Vine Trail crossing Pedestrian overcrossing 847
APPENDIX AC-C: DETAILED PROJECT LIST AND PRIORITIZATION 4 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan

AMERICAN CANYON PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT LIST
ID Roadway Limits or Intersection Recommendations Infrastructure Category AC-10
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Railroad Crossing3
Railroad Tracks East of SR-29 in vicinity of
proposed “Town Center”
 Grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing
over the railroad tracks Pedestrian overcrossing
AC-11
Danrose / Kimberly
Crossing Improvements3
Danrose Drive Danrose Drive at Kimberly Drive
 Evaluation of lane width reductions or other
measures to tighten up intersection and reduce
crossing distances
Traffic calming
Crossing treatments
AC-12
Commerce Boulevard
Extension3
Commerce
Boulevard
Eucalyptus Drive to southern
terminus of Commerce Boulevard  Multi-use pathway Pathway / Sidewalks AC-13
Newell Open Space
Pathway3
Newell Creek
Newell Open Space Entrance at
Newell Drive through Newell Open
Space
 River to Ridge pathway connection through
Newell Open Space Pathway
AC-14
River to Ridge Trail3,4
Eucalyptus Drive,
Rio Del Mar, South
Napa Junction
Road and Newell
Drive
Wetlands Edge Road to Newell
Drive
 East-west multi-use pathway from Theresa
Avenue to Newell Drive; Class II bike lanes west
of Theresa Avenue
Pathway / Bike Lanes
AC-15
Walsh Creek
Neighborhood Pathway3
Walsh Creek Cartagena Way to Via Bellagio  Multi-use pathway including a pedestrian bridge over Walsh Creek at Marbella Court Pathway

1. These projects are pedestrian projects that are referenced in other planning documents. These projects were not evaluated during the scope of this Plan; however, they may be pursued through separate and ongoing efforts.

2. Source: American Canyon Circulation Element, 2013; This project was developed through separate and ongoing efforts. It was evaluated for prioritization due to local importance.

3. Source: American Canyon Bicycle Plan, 2012

4. The location of these two projects (AC-2 and AC-17) overlap and thus have the potential for coordination Note: Tier One improvements are intended to be implemented within 5 years, Tier Two within 7-15, and Tier Three within 15 years or more, or opportunistically. 848
APPENDIX AC-C: DETAILED PROJECT LIST AND PRIORITIZATION 5 Based on feedback from NVTA TAC, improvements were evaluated based on the criteria below using a binary approach for ranking. Each improvement was ranked first based on the number of criteria it met, and second according to whether or not it had local support. Results are shown in the final table below. Tier Three projects, projects referenced from Plans other than the CTP, were not evaluated for prioritization.

PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
Criterion Data Set / Metric
Local support
 CTP Project
 Critical location identified by staff / public
Safety
 Collision “Hot Spot” Location
 Highway Interchange Location
 Traffic Calming
Transit
 Within ½ mile of a transit stop
 Within a ¼ mile of a transit stop
Connection
 Sidewalk gap closure
 Trail connection
Schools
 Within ½ mile of a school
 Within ¼ mile of a school
Cost  Low Cost Level (Signing and Striping)
849
APPENDIX AC-C: DETAILED PROJECT LIST AND PRIORITIZATION 6 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan

EVALUATION RESULTS
Project Local Support Safety
Transit
Connection
Schools
Low Cost Number of
Half Mile Quarter Mile Half Mile Quarter Mile Criteria Met

TIER ONE
AC-2        7
AC-3       6
AC-4       6
AC-7      5
1 TIER TWO
AC-1      5
AC-5      5
AC-6      5

1. Projects that met 5 or 6 criteria were on the border between Tier One and Tier Two. The ultimate Tier was determined based on input and discussions with staff. 850
APPENDIX AC-D: COST ESTIMATES
1 Appendix AC-D: Cost Estimates
AMERICAN CANYON TIER ONE PROJECT COST ESTIMATES1
Project ID Project Name Project Elements Cost2
AC-2
SR 29 Traffic Calming and James Road
Sidewalks
Neighborhood traffic calming study $30,000
Near Term
Sidewalk (Crawford to AC Road) $335,0003
Medium Term
Sidewalk (Crawford to Donaldson, east side) $335,0003
Long Term
Sidewalk (Crawford to Donaldson, west side) $335,0003
Total: $1,035,000
AC-3 Donaldson Way Improvements Sidewalk (SR 29 to James) $284,8003 Sidewalk (Carolyn to Andrew) $281,4003
Marked crosswalks at Andrew Road $4,700
Total: $570,900
AC-4
Safe Routes to School Improvements
Roundabout $350,000
Bus stop sign relocation $400
High visibility crosswalk $6,200
Total: $356,600

1 For an estimated cost for the SR 29 Pedestrian Crossings (AC-7), which was developed through separate planning efforts, please refer to the Countywide Plan Vision 2040. 2 Cost includes contingencies for traffic control (5%), construction management (10%), mobilization (5%), contingency (20%), design (15%) and environmental (10%). 3 Includes utility and drainage contingency (40%)
851
APPENDIX AC-E: PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION
1 Appendix AC-E: Plan Adoption
Resolution
This is a placeholder for Plan Adoption Resolution
852
APPENDIX AC-E: PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION
2 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
853
Countywide Implementation
CHAPTER 8
854
This page intentionally left blank.
855

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
19 Chapter 8
Countywide Implementation
Support Programs
Effective policies and comfortable, safe pedestrian designs are the foundation of pedestrian networks. However, policies and design are enhanced by accompanying programs that inform and educate users, enforce policies, and maintain infrastructure and can be key factors in increasing pedestrian safety. Successful and targeted education, enforcement, and engineering treatments can reduce pedestrian countywide pedestrian collision rates up to

13.3%9
. Below are program recommendations for NVTA to initiate, enhance, or continue through direct sponsorship or indirect support. These programs incorporate elements of design, enforcement, education, encouragement and evaluation. Implementation of these programs depends on funding, availability of staff, and coordination with other groups and organizations. Three types of programs are addressed in the following section:

9 C. V. Zegeer, S. Masten, L. Marchetti, Y. Fan, L. Sandt, A. Brown, J. Stutts, and L. Thomas, “Evaluation of Miami-Dade Pedestrian Safety Demonstration Project,” Transportation Research Record, No. 2073, pp. 1-10. 856

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
20 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Safe Routes to School (SRTS), a Countywide Count Evaluation Program, and Vision Zero. These programs are best managed at the county-level as they require coordination among multiple jurisdictions. NVTA will work closely with individual jurisdictions to ensure implementation matches the individual context of each community within Napa County.

Safe Routes To School (SRTS)
School zones are busy areas for pedestrians and bicyclists, with conflicts presented from navigating the many parents in cars dropping off or picking up students. However, children who walk or bike to school can experience improved physical health and can contribute to reducing traffic associated with school drop-off, as much as 25% of morning peak hour traffic10. The Napa County Office of Education (NCOE) currently has a four-year grant (though 2017) to administer programs to encourage children to safely walk or bicycle to school across the County as part of a SRTS Program. Program leaders have a goal of reaching every interested school by the end of the grant term, administering programs such as Walk and Roll to School Day, Bike Rodeos, and Safe Walking education presentations. Educational components of SRTS programs are especially important for school children where safe walking habits may be instilled as lifelong lessons.

Successful SRTS programs lead to changes in the way students and parents choose to travel to and from school.

These programs succeed by including each of the “Five E’s” of SRTS to ensure that their project is a well-rounded, comprehensive approach to getting more students walking and bicycling. The Five E’s include education, encouragement, engineering, enforcement, and evaluation.

Education and Encouragement
As a result of the existing three-year SRTS grant, Napa County has implemented after-school and in-class education and encouragement programs in Calistoga, Howell Mountain, and throughout the Napa Valley Unified School District. The program includes events such as Walk and Roll to School Day, Bike Rodeos, and Safe Walking education presentations for students in grades K-3. Brochures in both English and Spanish are handed out during this program as well as at community events and PTA/parent meetings. Parent presentations include a review of pedestrian laws and ordinances. Although materials for these programs are available each year for schools across the County, reaching schools on a routine basis has not been possible due to understaffing and scarcity of volunteers.

Recommendations
 Coordinate with individual schools and Napa County Office of Education to distribute information to teachers, parents, and students about the following issues:
o Recommended routes to walk or bike to school

10 Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC), Safe Routes to School Guide, Introduction to Safe Routes to School: the Health, Safety and Transportation Nexus, 2007.
857

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
21 o Benefits of walking or biking to school for parents and students o Location and prescribed traffic patterns for pick up and drop off areas o Potential fines for not obeying traffic laws in the school zone and pick up and drop off areas o Alternative locations for “park and walk” or “walking school bus” o Plan to roll out weekly Walk/Bike to School Day
 Ensure consistency with the Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) by seeking partnership opportunities between health agencies and SRTS to expand the reach of education and promotion of walking.

Engineering
For SRTS programs, engineering refers to creating operational and physical improvements to the infrastructure surrounding schools that reduce both the speeds and potential conflicts with motor vehicle traffic, and can establish safer and fully accessible crossings, walkways, and trails.

Recommendations
 Analyze the transportation and safety issues in each school area by coordinating a walk around the school site and along regularly traveled school routes with city and school staff, parents, and students. Also, identify areas for safe and secure long term bicycle parking. Determine solutions for existing concerns and potential funding sources for implementing improvements, including pursuit of grant funding.  Coordinate with NVTA to seek additional funding for SRTS, especially for infrastructure projects recommended in the jurisdiction plans, Chapters 2-7.

Enforcement
SRTS enforcement involves partnering with local law enforcement to ensure that traffic laws are obeyed in the vicinity of schools and initiating community enforcement such as crossing guard programs and student safety patrols. Specific enforcement actions may be related to travel speeds, yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks, and proper walking and bicycling behaviors. The following recommendations would contribute to pedestrian safety and should be considered by local police departments for feasibility based on scale and available resources.

Recommendations
 Individual jurisdiction’s police departments should be a visible presence during school pick up and drop off periods, ticketing violators of traffic regulations in school zones, including speeding, illegal parking, not stopping for pedestrians in the cross walk, and U-turns.  Tracking pedestrian-involved collisions aligned with enforcement efforts could help analyze trends and effectiveness of enforcement methods, where applicable. 858

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
22 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Evaluation
To measure the success of a SRTS program, local agencies should monitor and document outcomes, attitudes, and trends through the collection of data before and after different interventions. In Napa County, weekly travel mode to school data was collected in Spring 2015 for students in K-6. In addition, parent surveys were conducted to determine mode and distance traveled to school. Staff surveys were completed to gauge safety and infrastructure needs at specific school sites.

Recommendations
 Use home distances from school from parent survey results to determine feasibility of rolling out Walking School Bus program where applicable. Track the number of children walking and biking to school and survey participating schools to track the success of implemented Walking School Bus programs.  Refer to requested infrastructure needs from staff surveys during recommended site walks under Engineering above.
 This plan will establish an ongoing countywide count program for Napa County. While the program will encompass a range of different site types throughout the County, several will be located within a quartermile of primary and secondary schools. At these locations, counts will be completed during the typical morning (7-9 AM) and afternoon (4-6 PM) travel peaks, as well as during the afternoon dismissal period (2-4 PM). Consider monitoring pedestrian volumes near schools over time to document trends related to SRTS efforts. Reference these trends when applying for infrastructure funding.

Countywide Count Evaluation Program
Establishing a countywide count program allows Napa County to measure facility use over time, evaluate pedestrian volumes before and after project implementation, and monitor travel patterns and safety conditions. In addition, count data may be used to support NVTA and jurisdictions’ applications for competitive grant funding by demonstrating the pedestrian demand in the project area. This count program could lead to a proactive approach to identify treatments and program funding as well as ensure that improvements are focused not only on areas with high pedestrian volumes and a high number of collisions, but also on areas with high collision rates (collision/daily pedestrian volume) that may not have as many people walking. Additionally, pedestrian volumes could be referenced proactively when setting speed limits and to determine if a reduced speed zone may be appropriate or other traffic calming measures may be needed, especially near school zones.

Count Methodology
Baseline counts were conducted at 42 locations throughout Napa County in October and November 2015.

Locations were chosen based on priority projects in the Countywide Transportation Plan (2015) and high-ranking projects from the walking audits of this plan. Observed pedestrian activity periods included the baseline morning (7-9 AM) and afternoon (4-6 PM) peaks, as well as school and weekend periods which were added based on adjacent land use and input from jurisdiction staff. Locations near schools received a count during the afternoon school dismissal (2-4 PM) and downtown locations were counted during the weekend midday peak (12-2 PM) 859

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
23 when recommended by jurisdiction staff. The implemented count schedule followed the methodology put forth in the MTC Handbook for Bicyclist and Pedestrian Counts (2003) and is consistent with researched best practices Statewide. The results of the counts are summarized in Table 9 below.

TABLE 9: PEDESTRIAN COUNT PROGRAM VOLUMES
ID Jurisdiction Location
Morning Evening School Weekend
7-9AM 4-6PM 2-4PM 12-2PM
AC1 American Canyon SR 29 and American Canyon Rd. 32 90 AC2 American Canyon Melvin Road at Poco Way 3 6
AC3 American Canyon James Road at Donaldson Way 23 42
AC4 American Canyon Elliott Drive at Donaldson Way 97 55 196 AC5 American Canyon Elliott Drive at Crawford Way 25 33 UNC1 Angwin Brookside Drive at Howell Mountain 18 23 30 UNC2 Angwin White Cottage Road at College Avenue 14 11
UNC3 Angwin Howell Mountain and Clark 1 0
CA1 Calistoga SR 29 and Cedar Street 80 256
CA2 Calistoga Petrified Forest Road and Foothill Boulevard 2 5 20 CA3 Calistoga Brannan and Lincoln 47 20
CA4 Calistoga Berry and Cedar 214 173
CA5 Calistoga Grant and Stevenson 22 22 10
CA6 Calistoga Grant Street and N. Oak Street 13 12 11
CA7 Calistoga Lake County Hwy / Silverado Trail N /
Lake Street 3 6
CA8 Calistoga Lake Street and Grant Street 60 66
NA1 City of Napa Browns Valley Road and Westview Drive 26 17 NA2 City of Napa First Street and Freeway Drive 67 30
NA3 City of Napa Imola Ave and Parrish Road 17 112
NA4 City of Napa Jefferson and Old Sonoma Road 12 27
NA5 City of Napa Jefferson and Sierra Avenue 206 43 138 NA6 City of Napa Salvador Ave and Escuela Drive 34 26 29 NA7 City of Napa Redwood Rd. and Solano Avenue 189 106 194 NA8 City of Napa Silverado Trail at 3rd Street/Coombsville/ East 24 17 34 NA9 City of Napa Soscol and First Street 89 143
NA10 City of Napa Imola Avenue and Foster Rd 63 34 67
NA11 City of Napa Soscol at Kansas 44 49
NA12 City of Napa Soscol at Imola 23 117
NA13 City of Napa Undercrossing: SR 29 and Napa Creek 7 42 31 SH1 St. Helena Main St. and Pope Sreet 55 134
SH2 St. Helena Main Street at Adams Street 112 321 798
SH3 St. Helena Hunt Avenue at Proposed Path (1) 23 37
860

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
24 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE 9: PEDESTRIAN COUNT PROGRAM VOLUMES
ID Jurisdiction Location
Morning Evening School Weekend
7-9AM 4-6PM 2-4PM 12-2PM
SH4 St. Helena Hunt Avenue at Proposed Path (2) 23 34
SH5 St. Helena Main and Grayson 8 16
SH6 St. Helena Main and El Bonita Avenue 5 8 7
SH7 St. Helena Spring Mountain and Elmhurst 13 7
SH8 St. Helena Main and Pine 35 65 104
YT1 Yountville Madison St. and Washington St. 100 73
YT2 Yountville Washington Street and Yount Street 149 245 797 YT3 Yountville Yount Street and Mt Avenue 56 14 27
YT4 Yountville California Drive and Washington Street 96 59 YT5 Yountville Yount Street and Finnell 95 94 72
The number of pedestrians observed during the morning hours of 7-9 AM ranged from 1 to 214. The highest volumes observed during this period were near schools, with over 200 pedestrians counted in Calistoga near Calistoga Elementary School and in the City of Napa near Vintage High School and Bel Aire Park Magnet School.

The lowest volumes observed during this period were near the northeast corner of the unincorporated community of Angwin along Clark Way and near the southwest corner of the City of Calistoga at Petrified Forest Road and SR 128.

During the evening hours of 4-6 PM, pedestrian volumes observed throughout the County ranged from 0 to 321.

The highest volumes were observed in downtown locations, with about 250 pedestrians observed in downtown Calistoga and in downtown Yountville, and 321 observed in downtown St. Helena. The lowest volumes observed during this period were in the unincorporated community of Angwin adjacent to Clark Way and in the City of Calistoga near the northeast city boundary at the intersection of Silverado Trail N and Lake Street.

Pedestrians observed throughout the County during the school dismissal period of 2-4 PM ranged from 7 to 196.

The highest number of pedestrians during this period was about 200 in the City of American Canyon and the City of Napa, and the lowest were in St. Helena where less than 10 pedestrians were counted.

Weekend counts were collected in the afternoon from 12-2 PM and ranged from 6 to 798 pedestrians. The highest volumes were observed in downtown Yountville and St. Helena, where close to 800 pedestrians were counted. The lowest number of pedestrians were in Calistoga near Oat Hill Mine Trailhead and near the southern end of St.

Helena at SR 29 and El Bonita Avenue.

Of all locations observed throughout the county, an average of 54 pedestrians was recorded during the AM period (7-9 AM) and an average of 68 were observed during the PM period (4-6 PM). During the midday school observations (2-4 PM), an average of 63 pedestrians were counted at each location evaluated. An average number of 249 pedestrians was counted during the weekend count period (12-2 PM). These values varied significantly 861

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
25 based on population density of a given neighborhood or jurisdiction, as well as by the adjacent land use. Individual jurisdiction plans provide additional details about the pedestrian counts completed within those locations.

Evaluation and Next Steps
Going forward, NVTA intends to conduct annual counts throughout the County on an annual basis. Counts will primarily be conducted in locations evaluated in the baseline year (2015) to monitor travel trends and the impact of project implementation on pedestrian volumes, as well as justify funding for priority projects in this plan. With the collected counts, NVTA may compare travel patterns across different locations, measure changes in pedestrian use at a single location over time, and evaluate the extent to which pedestrian travel peaks throughout the course of the day or week. By collecting counts at different times of day, NVTA may evaluate if a given pedestrian facility is typically used for recreational or utilitarian purposes.

NVTA should consider purchasing a mobile automated trail counter. With this counter, NVTA may collect data for extended periods of time at different locations, providing a more holistic understanding of pedestrian behavior at these sites.

In the future, count locations may be added or omitted based on agency priorities, and could include pedestrianinvolved collision locations to prioritize improvements in locations based on collision rates (collision/daily pedestrian volume). Individual jurisdictions may choose to add additional count locations at midblock locations where marked crosswalks may be considered based on existing pedestrian demand. These could be midblock locations where pedestrians are observed crossing the street such as between a hotel and a winery, a residential zone and a shopping center, or shopping and public parking. Pedestrian volumes at these locations could help determine if a midblock crosswalk should be evaluated based on the Crosswalk Guidelines in this plan.

Vision Zero
Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. The initiative has gained momentum in major American cities including San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, Washington DC and San Jose. In the form of a plan and/or policy, it challenges the existing approach to traffic safety by acknowledging that traffic deaths and severe injuries are preventable and by taking a multidisciplinary approach to tackle this complex problem. Vision Zero often starts at the local level and engages law enforcement, engineering, education, and evaluation to help reach its goals.

Implementation can include development of data-driven tools to identify high-injury networks and select priority locations for targeted engineering, education, and enforcement.

Recommendations
 Identify opportunities for funding for Vision Zero efforts, such as developing a Countywide database to inventory collision data and environmental factors, undertaking a comprehensive analysis to understand collision patterns, and facilitating an outreach process to identify community safety priorities and determine where to focus safety investments and improvements. 862

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
26 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Performance Goals
Napa County intends to monitor progress on the implementation of this Pedestrian Plan over time. Table 10 summarizes the County’s four performance goals and includes information on the associated metrics and policies to make progress toward meeting those goals.

This plan will be updated every 5-7 years, including an analysis of the increase in walking from the implementation of proposed facilities through the Countywide Count Evaluation Program, as well as an evaluation of the remaining project list. This update will ensure that proposed projects still meet the needs of the community. 863

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
27 TABLE 10: PERFORMANCE GOALS
Goal Metric Key Actions

1. Provide a connected
network of pedestrian
sidewalks, trails, and
pathways in the County
and its jurisdictions that
are safe and accessible to
a variety of users and that
foster community
interactions
Establish a construction pace of
one pedestrian capital
improvement project per year
per jurisdiction
Coordinate with NVTA to seek
additional funding for
infrastructure projects that
support safe routes to school
 Continue to seek grant funding to implement the projects recommended in each jurisdiction plan
 Coordinate with jurisdiction staff to inform schools and communities of relevant funding and grant opportunities  Reference the public involvement, analysis, and project evaluation efforts of this plan when applying for grants to fund projects
Reduce annual pedestrian
related collision rate by half by
2040
 Address collision locations identified in this plan by installing the projects identified and implementing the planned education and enforcement programs in Chapter 8.  Use 2015 as the baseline year for evaluation with progress evaluations at five-year intervals.

2. Encourage walking trips
through enhancing key
pedestrian connections to
transit
Increase the number of walking
trips to transit by 50% by 2040
 Work with NVTA and VINE to monitor the percentage of
riders walking to transit
 Prioritize and implement improvements near the VINE
stations and high use stops in support of this goal

3. Take advantage of
overlapping opportunities
Identify Complete Streets
funding and project synergies
with development and
infrastructure projects
 Review environmental documents and proposed
development plans for consistency with this plan and for a proposed facility’s ability to accommodate the needs of users of all ages and abilities
 Consider pedestrian facilities in all road resurfacing and intersection improvements

4. Encourage and educate
residents about walking
and enforce safe
interactions between
pedestrians and motorists
Administer SRTS programs to
each interested school by the
end of the grant cycle (2016)
and secure grant to continue
program
Launch Safe Routes for Seniors
and Safe Routes to Transit
initiatives
 Implement the SRTS Program recommendations in this
plan
 Distribute pedestrian safety brochures to the public to promote walking to community events
 Pursue grant funding through the California Office of Traffic Safety for a media safety campaign for motorists and implement campaign countywide through
advertisements on buses and bus shelters, through SRTS
and in-school curriculum, public service announcements, and/or brochures distributed by law enforcement
 Collaborate with senior centers and advocates to
implement education, encouragement, and engineering
projects to improve mobility for senior pedestrians
 Collaborate with transit providers to prioritize and
implement access improvements to transit stops
864

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
28 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Plan Consistency
This plan will build on, and need to coordinate with, a number of related planning efforts occurring not only at the countywide level but also at the city, regional, state, and federal levels. This section provides an overview of the policy framework surrounding pedestrian planning in Napa County by summarizing the key plans and policies that will affect and be affected by implementation of this plan. Key planning efforts include various routine accommodation and “complete streets” policies at the federal, state and regional levels; recent state legislation related to global warming and emissions of greenhouse gases; the MTC Bay Area Regional Bicycle Plan; NVTA’s Countywide Bicycle Plan; and local general plans.

This plan is consistent with plans and policies at federal, state, and local levels.

Federal Policies
The United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) can issue Policy Statements to help guide actions at lower levels of government
US DOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations
In 2010, the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) issued a policy directive in support of walking and bicycling, encouraging transportation agencies to go beyond minimum standards in fully integrating active transportation into projects. As part of the statement, the US DOT encouraged agencies to adopt similar policy statements in support of walking and bicycling considerations such as:
 Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes  Ensuring availability of transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities  Going beyond minimum design standards
 Integrating bicycling and pedestrian accommodations on new, rehabilitated, and limited access bridges  Collecting data on walking and bicycling trips
 Setting mode share for walking and bicycling and tracking them over time  Removing snow from sidewalks and shared use paths
 Improving non-motorized facilities during maintenance projects Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act Title III is legislation enacted in 1990 that provides thorough civil liberties protections to individuals with disabilities with regards to employment, state and local government services, and access to public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. Title III of the Act requires places of 865

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
29 public accommodation to be accessible and usable to all people, including those with disabilities. While the letter of the law applies to “public accommodations,” the spirit of the law applies not only to public agencies but to all facilities serving the public, whether publicly or privately funded.

State Policies
State policies that relate to this plan include:

Complete Streets Act of 2008
California’s Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly bill 1358) requires all cities and counties to modify the circulation element of their general plan to “plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users” when a substantive revision of the circulation element occurs. The law went into effect on January 1, 2011. The law also directs the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to amend its guidelines for the development of circulation elements to aid cities and counties in meeting the requirements of the Complete Streets Act.

Senate Bill 375 / Assembly Bill 32
California Assembly Bill 32 requires greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to be reduced by 28 percent by the year 2002 and by 50 percent by the year 2050 in response to climate change. Senate Bill 375 provides the implementation mechanisms for AB 32. It requires metropolitan planning organizations and regional planning agencies to plan for these reductions with the development of Sustainable Community Strategies, which will be a regional guide for housing, land uses, and transportation and will incorporate the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). One key component of this is the reduction of automobile trips and vehicle miles traveled. Planning for increases in walking, bicycling, and transit use as viable alternatives are important components of these plans.

Caltrans Deputy Directive 64
In 2001, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) adopted Deputy Directive 64 (DD-64), “Accommodating Non-motorized Travel,” which contained a routine accommodation policy. The directive was updated in 2008 and in 2014 as “Complete Streets—Integrating the Transportation System.” The new policy reads in part:
“Caltrans views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system.

Caltrans develops integrated multimodal projects in balance with community goals, plans, and values.

Addressing the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in all projects, regardless of funding, is implicit in these objectives. Bicycle, pedestrian and transit travel is facilitated by 866

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
30 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
creating “complete streets” beginning early in system planning and continuing through project delivery and maintenance and operations….”
The directive establishes Caltrans’ own responsibilities under this policy. Among the responsibilities that Caltrans assigns to various staff positions under the policy are:
 Ensure bicycle, pedestrian, and transit interests are appropriately represented on interdisciplinary planning and project delivery development teams.
 Ensure bicycle, pedestrian, and transit user needs are addressed and deficiencies identified during system and corridor planning, project initiation, scoping, and programming.  Ensure incorporation of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel elements in all Caltrans transportation plans and studies.
 Promote land uses that encourage bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel.  Research, develop, and implement multimodal performance measures.

Regional and County Policies and Connections
This plan is consistent with regional- and county-level plans. Pedestrian and bicycle networks were reviewed from local and regional agencies, including MTC, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and NVTA to promote a coordinated regional system. These plans are described briefly below.

Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2010)
Completed in 2010, the Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan provides a list of policies, projects, and programs for increasing bicycle and pedestrian mode share throughout Sonoma County. While no policies explicitly highlight connections to Napa County, several identified projects terminate at the Napa-Sonoma County border.

Portions of the Sonoma County Bay Trail connect directly with the Napa County sections of the Bay Trail. For example, the Sonoma Plan proposes Bay Trail segments from Hudeman Slough (Project 206C) and from Dale Avenue (Project 206A) to the Napa County border.

Solano Countywide Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012) The Solano Countywide Pedestrian Transportation Plan, approved in 2012, explicitly discusses how the plan fits within the regional pedestrian context. The plan includes a goal to “develop a pedestrian connections network that connects to northern California’s alternative modes system”, with a specific objective to “plan and implement access to public transit connections to neighboring counties (i.e. Yolo County, Napa County, Sacramento County, etc.)”. Portions of the Bay Trail in Solano County extend along the Vallejo waterfront with plans to ultimately route the trail to Bay Trail segments in American Canyon in Napa County. 867

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
31 Bay Trail Gap Analysis Study (2005)
The Bay Trail Project is a nonprofit organization administered by ABAG that plans, promotes and advocates for the implementation of a continuous 500- mile bicycling and hiking path around San Francisco Bay. When complete, the Trail will pass through 47 cities, all nine Bay Area counties, and cross seven toll bridges. The Gap Analysis Study identifies portions of the Trail yet to be completed, and groups these into short-, medium-, and long-term projects.

Much of the Bay Trail development in the past has been in San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin Counties. Physical and environmental constraints in the North Bay have limited Bay Trail development in Sonoma and Napa Counties; however, projects such as the Sonoma Baylands, Sears Point Restoration, Napa Sonoma Marsh and Wetlands Edge Trail in American Canyon are representative of increasing progress toward Bay Trail implementation in the North Bay. This study includes several proposed Bay Trail projects within Napa County:
 6.9 miles of the Bay Trail are included in the plan as short-term projects  22.4 miles of Bay Trail are included in the plan as medium-term projects  3.86 miles of Bay Trail are included in the plan as long-term projects Napa Valley Vine Trail Project Plan (2013)
The Napa Valley Vine Trail Project Plan describes an initiative to build a walking and bicycling trail connecting the entire Napa Valley. This proposed 47-mile Napa Valley Vine Trail is seen as the key link in a Napa County-wide trail system, which also includes portions of the region-wide Bay Trail and Ridge Trail. The Trail project is a partnership between the NVTANVTA and the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition. Several recommended improvements in this plan align with existing or planned segments of the Vine Trail and include:
 Redwood Road at Solano Avenue Intersection Improvements in Napa (Improvement N-26)  RLS Middle School Sidewalk and Hunt Avenue Improvements in St. Helena (Improvement SH-1)  South St Helena / Unincorporated Connection in St. Helena (Improvement SH-11)  Vine Trail Improvements in Yountville (Improvement Y-4)  Madison Street Wayfinding in Yountville (Improvement Y-9) Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District Master Plan (2009, 2012 update) The first Master Plan for the Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District was adopted by the Board of Directors in 2009, with a plan update approved in 2012. Of the plan’s guiding policies, two are of particular relevance to this planning effort:
 Promote non-motorized recreation facilities such as hiking trails, bicycle routes and other facilities that link the County’s cities, town and communities to each other and to regional parks and other important destinations.
868

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
32 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
 Increase recreational trails open to the public by at least 100 miles, working in partnership with other governmental agencies and non-profit land conservation organizations.

MTC Policy on Routine Accommodation
MTC is the regional transportation planning agency for the Bay Area. In 2006, MTC adopted a policy on “Routine Accommodation.” The policy states that pedestrian and bicyclist consideration must be integrated into planning, design, and construction of transportation projects that use regional transportation funds. The policy requires sponsors of a project, such as a city or county agency, to complete a project checklist, often referred to as a Complete Street Checklist. The checklist is intended to be completed at the earliest stages of the projects so that considerations for bicyclist and pedestrian accommodation can be made at the inception of the project.

Plan Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the comprehensive regional planning agency and Council of Governments for the nine counties and 101 cities of the San Francisco Bay region. Motivated by the California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, ABAG developed Plan Bay Area in July 2013, as regional transportation plan that guides the Bay Area in a long-range plan to significantly reduce greenhouse gases by 2040. The focus of this plan is to devote most (87%) of funding to operate and maintain the existing transportation network, with the remaining budget aimed at next-generation transit projects and other programs that support reducing GHG emissions.

Vision 2040: Moving Napa Forward
The Napa Countywide Transportation Plan – Vision 2040: Moving Napa Forward is a long-range transportation plan that includes a list of transportation investments for the next 25 years. The Napa Countywide Transportation Plan identifies goals and objectives that apply to all modes of transportation and identifies issues and challenges while setting the stage for a long range vision for the county. Several objectives highlighted in Moving Napa Forward align with the goals of this plan:
 Educate all roadway users so they may safely coexist.  Work with Napa County jurisdictions to adopt complete streets policies to meet the MTC funding eligibility requirements.
 Prioritize projects that expand travel options for cyclists and pedestrians as well as those projects that improve operation and safety for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists  Increase mode share for transit, walking, and bicycling to 10% by 2035 The plan also identifies key active transportation policies and concepts, discussing the role of complete streets, complete bicycle and pedestrian networks, and wayfinding and signage in encouraging active transportation within the county. Moving Napa Forward also includes a chapter focused on Transportation and Health, identifying a key priority action area as “[improving] wellness and healthy lifestyles”. 869

COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
33 Local Plans
Evaluation and Next Steps
Napa County consists of six local jurisdictions: four cities, one town and the County government, which has responsibility for the unincorporated areas of the County. All six jurisdictions have adopted policies as part of their respective general plans in support of walking. A list of these policies can be found in Appendix B of each Jurisdiction Plan, Existing Pedestrian Policies.
870

APPENDIX A
1 Appendix A – Public Workshop Materials
January 22, 2015 - NVTA
871

APPENDIX A
2 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
872

APPENDIX A
3 873

APPENDIX A
4 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
January 27, 2015 – Yountville Town Hall
874

APPENDIX A
5 875

APPENDIX A
6 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
February 4, 2015 – American Canyon City Hall
876

APPENDIX A
7 877

APPENDIX A
8 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
878

APPENDIX B
1 Appendix B – Ped INDEX Methodology
This Appendix presents the approach to estimating pedestrian demand within Napa County and summarizes the methodology and preliminary results. The results helped inform the decision for priority focus areas and walking audit locations; additional factors that were considered to provide context for that decision are discussed under High Improvement Need. In addition to developing suggested focus areas for this plan, further recommended next steps are listed at the end of this Appendix.

Methodology
Fehr & Peers used existing GIS data to develop a pedestrian demand model that identifies variations in pedestrian activity and potential demand on streets throughout Napa County. Pedestrian demand is based on several variables, including proximity, built environment, demographic, and zoning factors that are considered indicators for pedestrian activity. The variables, sources and scoring criteria are summarized in Table B-1. Each heading is defined below:
 Input Factor – pedestrian demand variable considered
 Source/Format – data source and GIS format (either point or polygon)  Range of Factor – range of possible values associated with the factor, grouped for scoring purposes  Variable Score – score assigned to reflect importance of value range for pedestrian demand, from zero to 100
 Processing – description of how factor is mapped and scored  Significance and Weighting Factor – significance of variable to overall pedestrian demand, and relative scoring factor, applied when all factors are considered together for the total pedestrian demand score of each roadway segment. The weighting factors listed in the table add up to 100, so the compiled scores range from zero to 100.
879

APPENDIX B
2 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE B-1: LIST OF VARIABLES USED IN GIS PEDESTRIAN DEMAND MODEL Input factor Source /
Format
Range of
Factor
Variable
Score Processing Significance and Weighting Factor
Built Environment (Density and Diversity of Land Uses)
Population
Density – per acre
Census 2010/
Polygon
0-3 persons
per acre
0 Uses kernel density (persons per
acre) to derive average density
within a 1 mile buffer using census
block group data
Assigns average grid value to
street centerline
High
14/100
3-6 20
6-9 40
9-12 60
12-15 80
15+ 100
Employment
Density – per acre
Smart
Database Job
Locations/
Polygon
0-3 persons
per acre
0 Uses kernel density (per acre) to
derive average number of
employees within a 1 mile buffer
using census block group data
Assigns average grid value to
street centerline
High
14/100
3-6 20
6-9 40
9-12 60
12-15 80
15+ 100
Intersection
Density
Smart
Database –
Street
Intersection
Density
0-50 0 Calculates total intersection
density, weighted to reflect
connectivity for pedestrian and
bicycle travel.

The denominator is total land
area.

High
14/100
50-100 25
100-150 50
150-200 75
200+ 100
Land Use Mix –
ratio in each
census block
group
Smart
Database
Jobs-toPopulation
Ratio/ Polygon
0-.1 0 Calculates the jobs to population
ratio for census block group
Assigns average grid value to
street centerline
**Census block groups with a
population density less than 3
persons/sq. mile were excluded in
the analysis to filter out rural areas
that may otherwise get a high
score
Medium
10/100

0.1-0.2 25

0.2-0.3 50

0.3-0.4 75
40+ 100
Proximity Factors (Destinations)
Schools – distance
in feet City/ Polygon
0-330 feet 100
Uses buffer to define ranges of
distance to nearest school
Assigns average grid value to
street centerline
Medium
9/100
330-660 95
660-1320 85
1320-2640 50
2640-5280 25
5280+ 0
880

APPENDIX B
3 TABLE B-1: LIST OF VARIABLES USED IN GIS PEDESTRIAN DEMAND MODEL Input factor Source /
Format
Range of
Factor
Variable
Score Processing Significance and Weighting Factor
Parks – distance in
feet City/ Polygon
0-330feet 100
Uses buffer to define ranges of
distance to nearest park
Assigns average grid value to
street centerline
Medium
9/100
330-660 75
660-1320 50
1320-2640 25
2640+ 0
Transit Proximity,
Bus Stops –
distance in feet
City, MTC/
Points
0-330feet 100
Uses buffer to define ranges of
distance to nearest bus stop
Assigns average grid value to
street centerline
Medium
9/100
330-660 95
660-1320 85
1320-2640 75
2640+ 0
660-1320 95
1320-2640 75
2640-5280 50
5280+ 0
Major Retail
Destinations/
Downtown/Comm
unity Commercial
Zone – distance in
miles
Neighborhood
Shopping
Districts and
other Retail
Areas (city
zoning
plans)/Polygo
ns
0 miles 100
Uses buffer to define ranges of
distance to nearest retail corridor
Assigns average grid value to
street centerline
Medium
9/100
0-.5 50
.5+ 0
660-1320 75
1320-2640 50
2640-5280 25
5280+ 0
Demographics
Age - % under 18
and over 65
Census 2010/
Polygons
0-15 % 0
Calculates percentage of under 18
and over 65 population in census
block group
Assigns average grid value to
street centerline
Low
4/100
15-35 25
35-40 50
40-43 75
43+ 100
Income - % below
poverty level
Census 2010/
Polygons
0-.5 % 0
Calculates percentage of
population below poverty level in
census block group
Assigns average grid value to
street centerline
Low
4/100
.5-1 20
1-2 40
2-3 60
3-4 80
4+ 100
881

APPENDIX B
4 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE B-1: LIST OF VARIABLES USED IN GIS PEDESTRIAN DEMAND MODEL Input factor Source /
Format
Range of
Factor
Variable
Score Processing Significance and Weighting Factor
Vehicle
Ownership - %
households with 1
or fewer vehicles
Census 2010/
Polygons
0-10 % 0
Calculates percentage of
households with 1 or fewer
vehicles in census block group
Assigns average grid value to
street centerline
Low
4/100
10-20 20
20-30 40
30-40 60
40-50 80
50+ 100
Each weighted variable is combined into a single heat map for each jurisdiction (Calistoga, St. Helena, Yountville, City of Napa, American Canyon and the Unincorporated Areas) to identify the highest and lowest areas of pedestrian demand11 within each area based on the composite score.

Results
The results of the Pedestrian Demand model are illustrated in the Pedestrian Index maps, Exhibit 8 of each Jurisdiction Plan (Chapters 2-7), where the range of pedestrian demand across each jurisdiction is shown with a color gradient from dark purple to light green. Locations with a relatively high population or employment density and proximity to significant destinations immediately rise to the top and are given the highest scores, as shown in the darkest colors – black and purple. The lowest scores are found in the areas with low to no housing or employment and are represented in a pale green color. Since the majority of the data used in the PedINDEX comes from the Census (Census 2010 and the Smart Database), the data is applied at the Census block-level rather than an individual block-level, which can cause the resulting “heat” or colors of some of the maps to appear in large sections rather than on a finer-grained scale. Census blocks are polygons created around a cluster of blocks for which the results are reported for the entire group to address privacy concerns. The following findings stand out on the Demand exhibits for the jurisdictions.

Highest Pedestrian Demand Areas
High pedestrian demand areas are found in and around the downtown cores, close to important economic activity generators, and where schools and parks are located in areas with relatively dense population. The downtown cores have the highest concentration of destinations in the cities and town, including retail corridors and employment density. Most of the variables listed in Table 1 are found in the Downtown Core.

In American Canyon, the absence of a downtown core pulls the emphasis around other variables such as population density, schools and parks. For example, the area south of American Canyon Road to the east of SR 29

11 This relative demand measure reflects latent demand, and does not account for the barriers that may prevent demand from being realized. Identifying and reducing these barriers is a key opportunity for this Plan to maximize demand. 882

APPENDIX B
5 includes American Canyon Apartments, a high-density housing complex, making it one of the higher concentrations of population in a city where the majority of housing is low-density single family homes. This relatively high population density, a variable ranked with high significance in the model, and the presence of multiple parks and schools nearby, both variables ranked with medium significance, make this an area of high pedestrian demand. Portions of The Preserve, Rancho Del Mar, and Napa Glen neighborhoods that are within walking distance of Donaldson Way Elementary School, American Canyon Middle School and multiple parks also receive a high pedestrian demand score.

Other high pedestrian demand areas are located in unincorporated areas in the center of the City of Napa or along the border of the city, and are shown in greater detail on Exhibit UNC-8, the Unincorporated Area Pedestrian Index. These areas are near multiple schools and parks as well as a mix of residential and commercial land uses.

Parks and schools are both highly weighted in the model, so the proximity to both of these destinations increases pedestrian demand. The shorter blocks and more grid-like patterns of the road network in these unincorporated areas also result in a higher intersection density, which contributes to the high demand level.

Medium Pedestrian Demand Areas
Medium pedestrian demand areas are found farther from the core of the incorporated jurisdictions.

Neighborhoods in these areas usually have a low mix of land uses but may have reasonably high population density, which is weighted with one of the highest significance factor among all 11 variables. They also are often relatively close to schools, parks, or the downtown area. For example, the residential area in the City of Napa east of Soscol Avenue and north of Lincoln Avenue, which includes Vineyard Terrace Apartments, Kentwood Apartments, and Glen View Garden Apartments, has a medium pedestrian demand score. This area has no employment centers and a low mix of land use; however, it does include medium-density housing, a park, and is within a half mile of a few other parks and schools. It is also adjacent to Soscol Avenue, a transit corridor for Vine Transit, with five bus stops bordering this area north of Lincoln Avenue.

The residential neighborhood in the City of Calistoga west of Lincoln Avenue between Grant Street and the northern city border is also a medium pedestrian demand area. This area borders Napa County Fairgrounds and includes several resorts and hotels. It is also adjacent to two schools - Calistoga Junior-Senior High School and Palisades Continuation High School – which are weighted with a high significance factor.

Low Pedestrian Demand Areas
Low pedestrian demand areas are found in portions of the jurisdictions with low population density, few destinations other than parks, and primarily residential land use (low land use mix). Areas near the outer edges of the cities and town and within the open space of the eastern unincorporated areas stand out for their low demand scores.
883

APPENDIX B
6 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
High Improvement Need
Barriers to Pedestrian Connectivity
Gaps in pedestrian infrastructure connectivity may result in barriers to pedestrian movement and discourage walking. Understanding where barriers exist within the countywide pedestrian network helps inform where improvements could be most beneficial. Examples of physical barriers include freeways or arterials with limited or difficult pedestrian crossings, such as SR 29.

The PedINDEX demand maps illustrate many high demand areas that exist near the key north-south physical barrier in the county, SR 29. New pedestrian connections can be prioritized in areas near barriers and a high pedestrian demand, such as potential enhanced crossings of SR 29 in St. Helena and Calistoga through the downtown areas. While the area between Eucalyptus Drive and American Canyon Road along SR 29 in American Canyon does not stand out in the PedINDEX demand maps with respect to existing development, areas of future development such as the Watson Ranch Town Center may be more telling of the need and location of potential pedestrian crossings.

Pedestrian Infrastructure Gaps
In addition to removing high priority barriers, the conditions of the physical infrastructure supporting walking, such as sidewalks, is an important consideration in identifying where improvements are needed. The Pedestrian Index maps include an overlay of gaps in the sidewalk network on top of the pedestrian demand results to visualize the interaction between these two variables. The flow chart below illustrates this concept by demonstrating how these two factors should work in conjunction to determine future needs for high demand areas. In general, places with high pedestrian demand and a high infrastructure need demonstrate target areas that could be prioritized for pedestrian improvements.

For example, the unincorporated County neighborhood located within the center of the City of Napa, called out on Exhibit UNC-8, has one of the highest demand scores in the unincorporated areas. A high concentration of the unincorporated population is in this area, which also has a high intersection density compared to the rest of the unincorporated areas. As seen on Exhibit N-8a, the neighborhood is also near multiple schools. Adding sidewalks or trails to this neighborhood, which currently lacks sidewalk coverage, could improve connectivity for school children and residents to ensure that any pedestrian demand is met with adequate facilities. The neighborhoods between Calistoga Junior-Senior High School and the Napa County Fairgrounds, two potential pedestrian destinations, present an additional opportunity for pedestrian infrastructure improvements. The grid pattern of the streets in this area contributes to a higher intersection density which drives the demand up in the model and provides good Pedestrian
Demand
Model
Pedestrian
Infrastructure
Deficiencies
High Improvement
Need
884

APPENDIX B
7 pedestrian connectivity to the two adjacent destinations. However, the lack of sidewalks and trails in this neighborhood, particularly between Grant Street and Fair Way, are a potential barrier to pedestrians and could be a candidate for improvements where speeds and traffic volume levels warrant.

Collisions
Pedestrian collisions are an important consideration when determining where to invest in pedestrian improvements. Prioritizing locations with high latent demand that also have a high frequency of pedestrianinvolved collisions can encourage more of the latent demand to be realized, rather than be inhibited due to potential safety issues. By focusing improvements on areas where these two variables overlap, cities can work towards removing collision hot spots as a barrier to walking and giving pedestrian demand the chance to fully realize. If effectively implemented and demand fully realized, improvements in these high-potential areas can result in a good return-on-investment scenario in terms of benefit/costs.

Areas with Lower Pedestrian Demand
The information gathered from the GIS model provides a technical methodology for making informed decisions about areas which would most benefit from improvements. However, focusing improvements only on areas with highest pedestrian demand will not address all of the needs within the County. There may be areas, such as rural areas or streets around schools and senior centers, which have a lower pedestrian demand but would still benefit from pedestrian improvements.

Some areas may fit the low demand criteria for the PedINDEX demand maps and still be appropriate locations for a trail network, especially near parks in the eastern region of Napa County. Existing trails collected as part of the inventory in the Countywide Napa Pedestrian Plan, along with those available in GIS from jurisdiction staff, were overlaid on the PedINDEX maps to identify important investment opportunities related to potential areas of connectivity that the PedINDEX variables do not highlight. 885

APPENDIX B
8 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Next Steps
The pedestrian demand analysis was used to:
 Provide a point of comparison to the public comment maps to understand the interaction between latent pedestrian demand and public concerns
 Inform the selection of walk audit locations along with several other inputs In addition, the pedestrian demand analysis may be used in the following ways:
 To guide the development of policies and programs relating to specific geographic areas, destinations, built environment factors and demographics
 To inform recommendations for pedestrian infrastructure and design guidelines, which can be tailored and context specific based on the built environment and areas of varying demand  As a guide for prioritizing future Capital Improvement Program lists and other investments, in particular as it relates to removing barriers or deficiencies in high potential areas 886

APPENDIX C
1 Appendix C – Grant Funding Sources
Federal Programs
The majority of public funds for bicycle, pedestrian, and trails projects are derived through a core group of federal and state programs. Federal funding is authorized through the Surface Transportation Program (STP). STP provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway. In the past this funding was authorized by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). Funding for STP is now authorized through FAST Act, with the same structure and goals of STP funding.

The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), included in MAP-21 and maintained in the FAST Act, provides funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit access, mobility, and recreation trails program. TAP broadens eligibility and flexibility for state allocation of TAP funds. Safe Routes to School programs, including infrastructure, encouragement, campaigns, education, outreach and a Safe Routes coordinator, are eligible under TAP, though no funds are dedicated for this.

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) also authorizes federal funds, including education programs. FAST Act maintains the existing CMAQ program and broadens eligibility for transit operations.

Federal funds from STP, TAP and CMAQ programs are allocated to MTC and distributed in Napa County.

Distribution is allocated either competitively or proportionally according to jurisdiction population.

State Programs
Several state-wide funding sources and regionally administered funding sources are available for pedestrian projects and efforts.

Active Transportation Program
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created by SB 99/ Assembly Bill 101 in 2013 to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation such as biking and walking. The program consolidates five existing state funded programs: Transportation Alternatives Program, Recreational Trails program, Safe Routes to Schools, Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program and the Bicycle Transportation Account. It provides a comprehensive program that improves planning and flexibility and is more efficient than multiple programs.

Another benefit is that funds can be directed to multi-year projects to make greater long-term improvements to active transportation.

The ATP mixes state and federal funds and provides approximately $130 million annually, with a focus on implementing active transportation improvements to support the goals of local SB 375 sustainable community strategies. This program is funded from a combination of federal and state funds from appropriations in the annual 887

APPENDIX C
2 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
state budget act. Forty percent of the funding will go toward metropolitan planning organizations in urban areas.

Ten percent of the funds go to small urban and rural regions. The remaining fifty percent of the funds go to the California Transportation Commission for statewide projects. The ATP ensures that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program by requiring that a minimum of 25% of fund be distributed to disadvantaged communities.

To maximize the effectiveness of program funds and to encourage the aggregation of small projects into a comprehensive bundle of projects, the minimum request for Active Transportation Program funds that will be considered is $250,000. This minimum does not apply to non-infrastructure projects, Safe Routes to Schools projects, and Recreational Trails projects.

Project types allowed under the ATP include: new bikeways serving major transportation corridors, new bikeways to improve bicycle commuting options, bicycle parking at transit and employment centers, traffic control devices to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, improving and maintaining safety on existing bikeways, recreational facilities, Safe Routes to School projects, Safe Routes To Transit projects, education programs, and other improvements to bicycle-transit connections and urban environments.

For a project to contribute toward the Safe Routes to School funding requirement, the project must directly increase safety and convenience for public school students to walk and/or bike to school. Safe Routes to Schools infrastructure projects must be located within two miles of a public school or within the vicinity of a public school bus stop. Other than traffic education and enforcement activities, non-infrastructure projects do not have a location restriction. More information on the Active Transportation Program can be found at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/.

Highway Safety Improvement Program
Caltrans administers two funding programs for roadway safety improvements: the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and the Highway Rural Roads Program (HR3). These programs use cost-benefit ratios as a primary factor in the awarding of applications. Because both of these programs focus on roadway safety, projects with documented collision history – through frequency of collision but particularly collision severity – are typically ranked higher. Roadways with documented bicycle and pedestrian collision history, as discussed in Chapter 3 of this plan, may be well-qualified for HSIP and HR3 applications, particularly since many of the proposed projects would improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety at a lower cost than many of the highway projects also eligible under this funding source.

In its most recent grant cycle (November 2015), Caltrans awarded over $160 million to 182 projects. While this funding source is often used for major roadway improvement projects, installation of traffic signals, and most other cost-intensive projects, funding has routinely been awarded to bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Successful projects have included:
 Median refuges and curb extensions
888

APPENDIX C
3  Curb, gutter, and sidewalk
 Paved shoulders
 Upgraded traffic signals with pedestrian countdown signals and pedestrian-scale lighting  Bicycle lane striping
 Crosswalk striping
 Roundabouts
 Rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) at crossings Many of these projects were applied for as standalone bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects; some bicycle and pedestrian improvements were included with a broader package of roadway improvement projects. The average programmed federal funding amount was about $880,000. The next call for projects, Cycle 8, is expected to be announced in April, 2016.

More information is available online:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.htm
Other Statewide Funding Programs
Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants are available to jurisdictions and can be used for planning or feasibility studies. The Division will award approximately $9.8 million in funding for Fiscal Year 2016-17. The maximum funding available per project is $300,000.

Limited amounts from the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which is derived from a ¼ cent of the general sales tax collected statewide, can be used for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The California State Parks administers the state’s Recreational Trails Program (RTP). RTP provides funds annually for recreational trails and trails-related projects. Cities are eligible applicants for the approximately $5.3 million available annually. The program requires an applicant match of 12 percent of the total project cost.

The National Park Service and California State Parks administer the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCP).

The LWCF Program provides matching grants to states and local governments for the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities cities are eligible applicants. Approximately $1.74 million is available annually; grants require a 50 percent local match.

Some of these programs will no longer be funded under proposed and current federal and state funding plans, and may only be short-term funding resources for the current schedule of projects. See below for proposed funding structures related to some of these programs.
889

APPENDIX C
4 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
One Bay Area Grant
One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG) is now an umbrella for the previous MTC grant programs. Administered by NVTA, it combines funding for Transportation for Livable Communities, Bicycle, Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation, and Safe Routes to School. NVTA anticipates that Cycle 2 will cover FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22.

This program is administered by MTC and awards funding to counties based on progress toward achieving local land-use and housing policies. Cities and counties can still use OBAG funds for projects described under these programs.

MTC OBAG program information:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/onebayarea/
http://www.nvta.ca.gov/one-bay-area-grant-obag
Surface Transportation Program
The Surface Transportation Program (STP) block grant provides FAST Act funding for transportation projects, including pedestrian and bicycle projects (see above discussion about Federal programs for details). This program is administered by MTC, which can prioritize projects for RSTP funding.

MTC STP program information:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/STPCMAQ/
Transportation Development Act, Article 3
Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 funds statewide funds for planning and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities administered locally through MTC. TDA, Article 3 funds are allocated based on population and may be used for engineering, right of way, construction, retrofitting, route improvements, and an assortment of bicycle facilities.

BAAQMD Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA)
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TCFA) is a grant program administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The purpose of the program, which is funded through a $4 surcharge on motor vehicles registered in the Bay Area, is to fund projects and programs that will reduce air pollution from motor vehicles.

Grant awards are generally made on a first-come, first-served basis to qualified projects. A portion of TFCA revenues collected in each Bay Area county is returned to that county's congestion management agency (CMA) for allocation (Napa Valley Transportation Authority in Napa County). Applications are made from local agencies directly to the CMAs, but must also be approved by the BAAQMD.

TFCA County Program Manager Fund: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Strategic-Incentives/FundingSources/TFCA/County-Program-Manager-Fund.aspx 890

APPENDIX D
1 Appendix D – Best Practices Toolkit
This document outlines guidelines for the design of walking facilities in Napa County. Safe, walkable streets are a vital aspect of the pedestrian environment, and they enhance the health of communities. Well-designed walking spaces should be comfortable for all residents – of all ages and abilities – to enjoy.

Creating a Walkable Network
A well-connected pedestrian network is a vital component of livable communities, which thrive on multimodal travel for all roadway users, regardless of age or ability. Multimodal travel incorporates the needs of not just motor vehicles in roadway design, but the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users as well. The primary goal of the Best Practices Toolkit is to assist in creating streets Countywide that accommodate pedestrians through a set of recommended practices that enhance walkability. These practices are rooted in the larger concepts of Complete Streets and Traffic Calming, explained below.

Complete Streets
Complete streets accommodate safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. A complete street is designed to make it easy for users of all ages and abilities to travel across and along the street. Complete street practices improve the pedestrian realm when properly integrated with the adjacent land use context, because they encourage the design of streets with well-connected and comfortable sidewalks, traffic calming measures to manage vehicle speeds and enhanced pedestrian crossings. Though the level of accommodation of all modes will vary in different land use contexts, incomplete streets—those designed primarily for automobile access—can be a barrier in any neighborhood, particularly for people with disabilities, older adults, and children.

Traffic Calming Best Practices
Traffic calming includes a suite of treatments designed to encourage safe, pedestrian-oriented speeds. Universal considerations for traffic calming along a pedestrian network can reduce the need for substantial and costly safety improvements in the future, such as large road diets or roundabouts. Considering the relationship between the design speed of a roadway and the desired speed, especially in the context of downtown locations and school zones, is an important first step to designing for a pedestrian-friendly environment. Examples of proactive traffic calming treatments include reduced lane widths, chicanes, and reduced curb radii. Reduced speeds from traffic calming can increase a driver’s field of focus and attention to pedestrians that may be walking along or across the street. Additional design guidance is available on NACTO’s website at: http://nacto.org/publication/urban-streetdesign-guide/intersection-design-elements/visibility-sight-distance/ and in the Treatment Guidelines section. . 891

APPENDIX D
2 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
The Pedestrian Realm
The pedestrian realm consists of walkways, pedestrian crossings, and open public spaces. The quality of the pedestrian realm has two components: accessibility and comfort.

These design guidelines will help each jurisdiction make decisions about the preferred application of pedestrian treatments in the following areas:
 Streets and Sidewalks
 Pathways/Trails
 Accessibility
 Crosswalk Guidelines for Uncontrolled and Controlled Crossings The pedestrian enhancements described throughout these guidelines provide street design best practice guidance, which can enhance the safety, convenience, and mobility for pedestrians.

Streets and Sidewalks
Streets and sidewalks should support the activities and pedestrian levels along the street. Streets should be wellconnected to ensure that destinations are within walking distance and wide enough to support the expected pedestrian volumes.

Sidewalk Zones
The application of sidewalks varies throughout Napa County. In some jurisdictions and within the unincorporated County where sidewalks may be cost-prohibitive and/or conflict with the desired rural character of the area, lowercost alternatives should be considered as discussed below. Other more urban areas of the County include sidewalks that are built to specified minimum widths found in the standard street cross-sections for the jurisdiction where they are located and may vary depending on land use. Table D-4 of the Treatment Guidelines section below provides guidelines on the design of organized sidewalk zones that meet walking demand and provide comfort to users.

Alternatives to Sidewalks
While many of the guidelines outlined here are appropriate in downtown or more urbanized locations, many of the roadways throughout the County are rural, especially in unincorporated areas, and some of the sidewalk guidelines are either not feasible or not a contextual fit. In these instances, pedestrian facilities (where warranted) can be provided through the use of paved multi-use shoulders, unpaved shoulders or pathways. The feasibility of most of these treatments will depend on available right-of-way and should be evaluated when certain general criteria are met, discussed below under Considerations for Sidewalk and Shoulder Installation. For additional design guidance on paved multi-use shoulders, see Table D-10 of the Treatment Guidelines section. For design 892

APPENDIX D
3 guidance on pathways and trails, including materials that have been tested in rural settings for ADA applications, refer to the Pathways/Trails section below.

Considerations for Sidewalk and Shoulder Installation
Many rural roadways present engineering and cost challenges for pedestrian facilities due to steep terrain or narrow right-of-way. As such, a three step process for determining applicable facility types and locations is recommended: (1) collect contextual data, (2) evaluate data versus thresholds, and (3) select facility type.

Context
The appropriate location for pedestrian facilities, especially in rural contexts such as the unincorporated areas of Napa County, depends on several factors related to the potential for pedestrian demand including presence of pedestrian-oriented land uses (such as retail, schools or parks), presence of transit, and/or observed pedestrian volumes. More importantly, sidewalks are a documented safety countermeasure12, and therefore should first be prioritized in locations where pedestrian-vehicle collisions have been recorded with a “walking along the roadway” crash type or there are reported safety concerns, independent of land use or other factors. In cases with no pedestrian demand and no documented safety concerns (reported or anecdotal), designated pedestrian facilities may not be required in a rural context.

Thresholds and Facility Selection
If pedestrian facilities are merited based on the contextual factors, the type of facility is determined based on the land use, vehicle volumes, and density of development. Table D-1 below, developed for the FHWA, Office of Safety as part of the Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System, should be used as a resource to determine the appropriate type of pedestrian facility for the corridor.

While the table is intended to assist in the evaluation of existing conditions, future volumes and housing densities should also be considered to determine whether right-of-way should be preserved or secured in anticipation of sidewalks being warranted under a future condition.

TABLE D-1:

RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR NEW SIDEWALK/WALKWAY INSTALLATION Volume and Housing Density Thresholds
by Land Use Minimum and Preferred Sidewalk/Walkway Treatment Rural
Roadways with < 400 ADT Shoulders preferred, with minimum of 3 ft.

12 Zegeer, Charles V., Dan Nabors, Peter Lagerwey, “Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System”, http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=1 893

APPENDIX D
4 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-1:

RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR NEW SIDEWALK/WALKWAY INSTALLATION Volume and Housing Density Thresholds
by Land Use Minimum and Preferred Sidewalk/Walkway Treatment Roadways with 400 to 2,000 ADT 5-ft shoulders preferred, minimum of 4 ft required.

Rural / Suburban
Roadways with ADT > 2,000 and less
than 1 dwelling unit (d.u.) / acre
Off-street facility preferred (sidewalks or side paths1).

Minimum of 6-ft shoulders required. Paved shoulders are preferred to unpaved shoulders to provide an all-weather surface.

Note: In rural settings, greater width shoulders (up to 8 to 10 feet) are desired along high-speed roadways, particularly with a large number of trucks.

Roadways with 1 to 4 d.u. / acre Sidewalks on both sides required unless side path provided.

Suburban / Urban Residential
Non-Local Streets (i.e. major arterials,
collectors, and minor arterials) Sidewalks on both sides required.

Local streets with less than 1 d.u. / acre
Sidewalks on both sides preferred. Minimum of 5-ft shoulders required.

Local streets with 1 to 4 d.u. / acre
Both sides preferred.

Second side recommended if density becomes greater than 4 d.u. / acre or if schools, bus stops, etc. are added.

Local streets with more than 4 d.u. /
acre
Sidewalks on both sides required.

Urban Commercial
All Commercial Urban Streets Sidewalks on both sides required.

Industrial
All Streets in Industrial Areas Sidewalks on both sides preferred. Minimum of 5-ft shoulders required. 1 Side path is a pathway separated from the travel way; an off-street pathway. It may be paved or unpaved, and is separated from the roadway by a grass or landscape strip without curbing.

Source: Zegeer, Charles V., Dan Nabors, Peter Lagerwey. “Recommended Guidelines/Priorities for Sidewalks and Walkways,” Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System, August 2013.

Pathways/Trails
Pedestrian pathways, which include paved multi-use trails as well as informal, unpaved trails, are an asset to Napa County. They increase pedestrian connectivity and satisfy pedestrian desire lines that are otherwise not accommodated by pedestrian facilities. The design of a trail segment should accommodate users walking in both directions when possible. A pathway can be direct, especially when providing a useful connection between two pedestrian generators, or if the primary purpose is recreational they can meander and take advantage of natural landscape features such as creeks and open space. Perhaps the most important consideration for pedestrian safety in the design of trails is crossing locations. Refer to the Crosswalk Guidelines of this Appendix for applicable treatments based on locational context.
894

APPENDIX D
5 Unpaved Pathway/Trail Accessibility
Trails and unpaved pathways/shoulders should provide access to pedestrians of all abilities. According to the Best Practices Design Guide for Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, a guidebook published by the FHWA, the surface material for a trail should be firm and stable to satisfy accessibility requirements. Many natural materials can provide a firm and stable surface, as shown in Table D-2 below. Slip resistance is also desirable although not always achievable. More information on accessible trail design is available in Chapter 15 of the FHWA guidebook, Recreational Trail Design, which can be viewed at the following link:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalk2/pdf/16chapter15.pdf.

TABLE D-2: FIRMNESS, STABILITY, AND SLIP RESISTANCE FOR A VARIETY OF COMMON TRAIL SURFACING

MATERIALS
Surface Material Firmness Stability Slip Resistance
(dry conditions)
Asphalt Firm Stable Slip resistant
Concrete Firm Stable Slip resistant*
Soil with Stabilizer Firm Stable Slip resistant
Packed Soil without Stabilizer Firm Stable Not slip resistant Soil with High Organic Content Soft Unstable Not slip resistant Crushed rock (3/4" minus) with Stabilizer Firm Stable Slip resistant Crushed rock without Stabilizer Firm Stable Not slip resistant Wood Planks Firm Stable Slip resistant
Engineered Wood Fibers that comply with ASTM
F1951 Moderately firm Moderately stable Not slip resistant Grass or Vegetative Ground Cover Moderately firm Moderately stable Not slip resistant
Engineered Wood Fibers that do not comply with
ASTM F1951 Soft Unstable Not slip resistant
Wood Chips (bark, cedar, generic) Moderately firm to soft Moderately
stable to
unstable
Not slip resistant
Pea Gravel or 1-1/2" Minus Aggregate Soft Unstable Not slip resistant Sand Soft Unstable Not slip resistant
* A broom finish significantly improves the slip resistance of concrete.

Source: Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide, FHWA, 2001 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalk2/pdf.cfm Accessibility
The United States Access Board published proposed accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way in 2011 which have yet to be adopted formally into law. The most recent information can be found on the Board’s website at www.access-board.gov/prowac/. These guidelines represent best practices and should be referenced when constructing new curb ramps and sidewalks to ensure accessibility for users of all abilities. FHWA 895

APPENDIX D
6 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
has also published Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, which includes guidance for designing accessible sidewalks and curb ramps. Relevant sections include Chapter 4 Sidewalk Corridors, Chapter 5 Driveway Crossings and Chapter 7 Curb Ramps. A summary of key specifications is included below in Table D-3. Additional guidance for surveying curb ramps can be found in the ADA Best Practices Toolkit for State and Local Governments, published by the United States Department of Justice, at https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/app1curbramps.htm.

TABLE D-3: ACCESSIBILITY GUIDANCE FOR SIDEWALKS AND CURB RAMPS Sidewalks
Maximum running slope 5%1
Maximum cross-slope 2%
Minimum clear width at obstructions 3 feet
Minimum clear height at obstructions (includes signs placed on sidewalk) 7 feet
Surface Firm, stable and slip resistant
Minimum vertical changes in elevation 0.25 inches
Note: Level landings should be provided at the back of sloped driveways to prevent abrupt changes in cross-slopes and accommodate wheelchairs
Curb Ramps
Maximum ramp slope 8.33%
Maximum gutter slope 5%
Minimum ramp width 36 inches; 48 inches desired
Minimum landing width 48 inches
Maximum flare slope 10%
Maximum cross slope 2%
Detectable warning width 24 inches
Note: Abrupt changes in elevation at the top or bottom of a curb ramp should be avoided. Two separate curb ramps should be provided at corners when possible, one for each crosswalk, to provide directional guidance to vision-impaired pedestrians. 1: Except where the grade of the existing street exceeds 5%. Level landings should be provided at regular intervals in these cases.

Source: Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide, FHWA, 2001 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalk2/pdf.cfm

Accessible Elements of a Curb Ramp Accessible Elements of a Sidewalk Image Source:
https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/app1curbramps.htm;
Annotations: Fehr & Peers 2016
Image Source: http://www.ite.org/css/online/DWUT08.html; Annotations: Fehr & Peers 2016
896

APPENDIX D
7 Additional Treatment Guidelines
Table D-4: Sidewalk Zones and Corners
Description
The sidewalk zone is the portion of the street right-of-way between the curb and building front. Within this zone, four distinct areas serve different organizational purposes.

Design Example

E = Edge Fu = Furnishings T = Throughway Fr = Frontage
Design Summary
Where right-of-way allows, sidewalks should be separated from vehicle lanes by a landscaped buffer. In addition to separating pedestrians from vehicle traffic, landscape buffers provide space for driveway curb cuts and reduce cross-slopes on sidewalks.

Wider sidewalks can accommodate more pedestrians and further buffer pedestrians from vehicles. In busy pedestrian areas such as downtowns and school areas, sidewalks wider than 6’ should be considered. These sidewalks could include wider landscaped buffers, a pedestrian pathway, and/or vegetative strips along the building face. Elements such as street furniture, newspaper racks, bicycle parking racks, and trash bins should be kept in the furniture zone and should not impede a straight travel path along the sidewalk. Additionally, “meandering” sidewalks, as opposed to straight sidewalks, should be avoided since they are inconvenient for pedestrians and are challenging for disabled users.

E Fu T Fr
897

APPENDIX D
8 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
 Edge/Curb Zone is the transition between the sidewalk and the road.  Furnishing/Landscape Zone acts as a buffer between the curb and throughway zone. This is the areas where trees should be planted and benches should be located. Any sidewalk amenities should be located within this area and should not interfere with the throughway zone. Streets with higher speeds should have larger furnishing zones.
 Throughway Zone provides enough space for pedestrians to travel.  Frontage Zone borders the building façade or fence. The primary purpose of this zone is to create a buffer between pedestrians walking in the throughway zone from people entering and exiting buildings. It provides opportunities for shops to place signs, planters, or chairs that do not encroach into the throughway zone.

Some zones are more important in specific settings; for example, most residential streets will not include a frontage zone and will only include a furnishing/landscape zone on streets with higher speeds.

These guidelines are nationally supported, and more information is available on the NACTO website:
http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/sidewalks/ Pedestrian Area at Corners
Corners must be functional and must accommodate those waiting to cross the street, those traveling along the sidewalk, and those who stop to congregate on the corner. The greater the number of expected pedestrians, the larger the pedestrian area should be. Other considerations sometimes erode the amount of usable space and hence the functionality of corners. Several strategies exist for expanding the pedestrian area at corners. Small corner radii generally provide the most usable space and the shortest crossing distances for pedestrians. Designers may also consider curb extensions, right-of-way acquisition, public easements across private property to expand the pedestrian area.

The pedestrian area should be clear of obstructions, especially in the triangle created by extending the property lines to the face of curb. Where existing obstructions such as utility poles or newspaper racks are removed, they should not be relocated such that they obstruct a pedestrian’s line of travel.

The general rule for choosing a corner radius should be to choose the smallest possible, acknowledging that each location has a unique set of factors that determines the appropriate radius. Small corner radii improve comfort, and create a more enjoyable walking environment because they create more usable space for pedestrians at the corner. They improve safety because they slow vehicle speeds and shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians and improve sightlines. Smaller corner radii are also beneficial for street sweeping operations.

The County may choose to recommend specific corner radii based on roadway classification, presence of curbside parking and heavy truck or transit traffic.

Image Sources: Valley Transportation Authority Pedestrian Technical Guidelines; Chula Vista Pedestrian Master Plan; Fehr & Peers
898

APPENDIX D
9 Table D-5: Pedestrian Wayfinding
Description
A pedestrian wayfinding system provides consistent and user-friendly information about distances and routes to and from major transit centers and popular destinations, making these places easier to connect to, and encouraging people to make short trips on foot. Signs that explain pedestrian directions and summarize route distances make for a more enjoyable and comfortable walking experience. Wayfinding is an essential aspect of street infrastructure which makes pedestrians a priority within the streetscape and enhances the character of the street.

Design Example
Wayfinding (Napa and Yountville examples)

Design Summary
Wayfinding signage should cater to both vehicles and pedestrians, particularly in districts with high levels of walking activity. Signs and routes that direct pedestrians to specific destinations are key to providing adequate wayfinding for pedestrians.

Image Source: lajollalight.com (left); Fehr & Peers (right) 899

APPENDIX D
10 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Table D-6: Pedestrian-Scale Lighting
Description
Pedestrian-scale lighting improves pedestrian visibility and the perception of safety and comfort while walking.

Well-lit pedestrian facilities are more inviting, and function well for pedestrians after sunset.

Design Example
Pedestrian-scale Lighting (South San Francisco and Calistoga)

Design Example
Pedestrian-scale lighting provides a better-lit environment for pedestrians while improving visibility for motorists.

Sidewalks with frequent nighttime pedestrian activity particularly in the downtown area should have pedestrian lighting. All crosswalks should have pedestrian-scale lighting. Pedestrians tend to observe more details of the street environment since they travel at a slower pace than vehicles, and thus pedestrian-scale lighting should have shorter light poles and shorter spacing between posts. A height of 12- 20 feet is common for pedestrian lighting.

The level of lighting should reflect the location and level of pedestrian activity. Pedestrian visibility needs and a desire in rural areas for starlit sky views can require tradeoffs in lighting decisions. Lighting requirement decisions in these situations should be documented for consistent implementation.

Image Source: Fehr & Peers and Seattle.gov
900

APPENDIX D
11 Table D-7: High-Quality Street Furniture
Description
High-quality street furniture provides pedestrians with inviting places to rest, and clearly defines the furnishings zone of a sidewalk. Street furniture enhances the streetscape with consistent design character, can protect landscape features, and formalizes waiting areas such as bus stops and street corners.

Design Example

Design Summary
Street furniture is normally placed on a sidewalk in the Frontage Zone to provide comfort for pedestrians and enhance place making within the pedestrian realm. Street furniture makes pedestrians feel welcome, but should not conflict with the pedestrian travel path. Street furniture can include benches, specially designed newspaper racks, fountains, special garbage/recycling containers, etc. 901

APPENDIX D
12 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Table D-8: Bus Stop Accessibility
Description
The specific location and design of a bus stop within the right-of-way and pedestrian facilities are important for bus operations and accessibility. The best bus stops are operationally safe and efficient for both buses and passengers.

The stop should be located to cause the minimum interference with pedestrian, bicycle and other vehicle movements. Bus stops should be located adjacent to the street curb in most cases, or at a bus bulb along busy transit routes or at transit centers and hubs. Minimum sidewalk and clearance is required for ADA accessibility.

Ideally, bus stops also include a bus shelter for protection from sun or rain, and other amenities; at minimum they should include a bus stop pole and ADA compliant bench.

Design Example
Bus
shelter with bench at back of sidewalk, leaving adequate ADA compliant clearance at curb.

Image Source: www.actransit.org, napavalleyregister.com Design Summary
Bus stops must be long enough for the buses that use them so the buses do not hang into the travel lane when pulling in to the bus stop. Buses must stop flush with the curb to provide ADA compliant access to passengers with disabilities. Bus stop dimensions should be coordinated with the appropriate transit agencies.

ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) specifies that the paved boarding/alighting area must be at least eight feet deep from the curb and five feet along the curb. ADAAG also requires a minimum path of travel (sidewalk) clear of obstructions to and from this boarding area at least three feet wide. Many cities use four feet or even six feet as their standard.

In most cases bus shelters should be placed at the back of the sidewalk in order to maintain pedestrian travel and meet ADA path of travel requirements. Exceptions are made and placement must consider security and line of sight at intersections and driveways.
902

APPENDIX D
13 Concrete bus pads can be used at bus stop locations to prevent and minimize pavement wear and maintain level grade at locations with heavy bus traffic.

These guidelines are nationally supported, and more information is available on the NACTO website:
http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/transit-streets/bus-stops/ Table D-9: Pedestrian Accommodations at Interchanges
Description
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has drafted a new recommended practice: Recommended Design Guidelines to Accommodate Pedestrians and Bicycles at Interchanges. These guidelines provide best practices in accommodation of all modes through interchanges to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety, connect pedestrian and bicycle facilities efficiently with surrounding land uses, and provide a consistent message. Napa County communities should follow guidance presented in this guide when designing or modifying interchanges. Guiding principles for pedestrians facilities include:
 Provide pedestrian facilities to safely and efficiently accommodate pedestrians.  Design ramp geometries in ways that encourage slower vehicle speeds until past the pedestrian crosswalk (as illustrated in the design example below).
 Locate the crosswalk at the location with the best visibility and before the point where vehicles begin to accelerate (as illustrated in the design example below).  Crosswalks should be designed to be as short as possible, but without deviating excessively from pedestrian desire lines. For long crosswalks, median pedestrian islands should be considered, as they can improve signal timing while making a long crossing less daunting for pedestrians.  Crosswalk Policies developed by each jurisdiction can be used to select appropriate crossing treatments.

Treatments range from standard tools such as traffic signal and median pedestrian islands to advanced devices such as the High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk beacon (HAWK or Hybrid) and the rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB).
903

APPENDIX D
14 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Design Example
Image Source: ITE Recommended Practice: Design Guidelines to Accommodate Pedestrians and Bicyclists at Interchanges.

Crosswalk located where speed is
lowest and visibility is highest
Ramp geometrics minimize speed
for vehicles leaving the arterial
904

APPENDIX D
15 Table D-10: Multi-Use Shoulders (Paved or Unpaved)
Description
Where sidewalks are not feasible, a multi-use shoulder can improve the pedestrian experience, providing a space for bicyclists and pedestrians adjacent to the travel lane. Where feasible and especially when speeds or truck volumes are high, eight to ten-foot shoulders in each direction provides ample space for both bicyclists and pedestrians to get to their destinations and a higher level of pedestrian comfort. Guidance for minimum shoulder widths are provided in Table D-1.

Design Example
Wide shoulders
Eight to ten foot paved shoulders can provide space for both bicyclists and pedestrians outside of the travel way. 905

APPENDIX D
16 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Enhanced Walkways
Enhanced multi-use shoulders are particularly appropriate where dedicated space is desired in rural contexts, such as in schooladjacent neighborhoods.

Image Sources: FHWA (first), City of Walnut Creek Design Guidelines, Fehr & Peers (second) 906

APPENDIX D
17 Crosswalk Guidelines Introduction
These Crosswalk Guidelines are aimed at improving pedestrian safety and enhancing pedestrian mobility. A comprehensive pedestrian safety strategy contains a three-pronged approach of engineering, enforcement, and education programs. This document focuses on engineering elements, such as pedestrian crossing treatments and intersection design.

This document describes the function of crosswalks and their legal context in the California Vehicle Code. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of marked crosswalks and summarizes research in the United States focused on pedestrian safety and marked crosswalks. It provides a summary of best practices related to numerous pedestrian treatments, including geometric, signage and striping, and signal hardware or operational measures.

The purpose of these Guidelines is to enable the City to respond to crosswalk requests in a manner that improves pedestrian accessibility and maintains public safety. It provides information to be used when making decisions about where standard crosswalks (two, parallel white stripes) can be marked; where crosswalks with special treatments, such as highvisibility crosswalks, flashing beacons and other special features, should be employed; and where crosswalks will not be marked due to volume, speed, or sight distance considerations.
907

APPENDIX D
18 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Crosswalk Fundamentals
Pedestrian crossing and right-of-way laws vary state to state, and are often a source of driver or pedestrian uncertainty and confusion for when crossing is legal. This section outlines the types of crosswalks, where crossing the street is legal in California, and guidance for identifying locations for marked crosswalks.

Types of Crosswalks
Crosswalks are primarily classified by three characteristics:

1. Whether they are marked (demarcated with striping on the street) or unmarked (no striping)

2. Whether they are controlled (by a traffic signal or stop-sign) or uncontrolled (with no intersection control)

3. Whether they are located at an intersection (where two streets meet) or mid-block (between intersections)
The following section outlines where crossing the street is legal in California. It also discusses key safety research regarding crosswalk markings and locational context..

Where Is Crossing the Street Legal?
In California, a legal crosswalk exists where a sidewalk meets a street, regardless of whether the crosswalk is marked (i.e., with or without striping to denote the crosswalk). Pedestrians may legally cross any street except at unmarked locations between immediately adjacent signalized crossings, or where crossing is expressly prohibited. Marked crosswalks reinforce the location and legitimacy of a pedestrian crossing and clarify pedestrian right-of-way at midblock locations.

These legal statues are contained in the California Vehicle Code (CVC) as follows:
 Section 275 defines a legal crosswalk as:
o That portion of a roadway included within the
prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of
sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting
roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street. 908

APPENDIX D
19 o Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for
pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the
surface.
 Section 21950 describes right-of-way at a crosswalk:
o The driver of a marked vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked
crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection.
 Section 21955 describes where pedestrians may not cross a street:
o Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic
control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a
crosswalk.

Why Mark Crosswalks?
Sidewalks and crosswalks are essential links within a pedestrian network.

Whether commuting, running an errand, exercising, or wandering, pedestrians will need safe and convenient crossing opportunities to reach their destinations. A marked crosswalk has three (3) primary functions:
1) To create reasonable expectations where pedestrians may cross a roadway
2) To improve predictability of pedestrian actions and movement 3) To channel pedestrians to designated crossing locations (often selected for their optimal sight distance)
Advantages of Marked Crosswalks
Marked crosswalks offer the following advantages:
 They help pedestrians find their way across complex intersections  They can designate the shortest path
 They can direct pedestrians to locations of best sight distance  They assure pedestrians of their legal right to cross a roadway at an intersection or mid-block crossing
This last bullet point is important. The California Vehicle Code gives the right-of-way to pedestrians at any marked or unmarked crosswalk (as noted above), although the law is not always obeyed by road users, 909

APPENDIX D
20 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
including both drivers and pedestrians. Drivers often fail to yield the rightof-way without the visual cue of a marked crosswalk. Pedestrians also do not always know the right-of-way law, and will either wait for a gap in traffic, or assert their right-of-way by stepping into the roadway.

Steps to Identify Candidate Locations for Marked
Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations
Identifying candidate locations for marked crosswalks involves two steps.

The first step is to locate the places people would like to cross the street.

These locations are called pedestrian desire lines, which represent the most desirable, and typically most direct, places that people want to cross a street. Pedestrian desire lines are influenced by elements of the roadway network, such as transit stops, and nearby land uses (homes, hotels, schools, parks, trails, commercial centers, wineries, etc.). This information provides a basis for identifying pedestrian crossing improvement areas and prioritizing such improvements, thereby creating a convenient, connected, and continuous walking environment.

The second step is to identify where people can cross safely. The primary consideration in this step is adequate stopping sight distance.

Once candidate locations are identified, an engineering evaluation should be conducted to determine if a marked crosswalk should be installed at an uncontrolled or mid-block location, and if so, what visibility enhancements should be included in the design. Crossings should be marked where all of the following occur:
 Sufficient demand exists to justify the installation of a crosswalk  Sufficient sight distance as measured by stopping sight distance calculations exists and/or sight distance will be improved prior to crosswalk marking
 Safety considerations do not preclude a crosswalk
Figures A-1 and A-2 describe the overall procedures from the moment City staff receives a request for a new marked crosswalk (or considers removing an existing marked crosswalk) to the installation of the treatment. As described, the first steps to determine the appropriate location and treatment for the crosswalk include a staff field visit. 910

APPENDIX D
21 Figure A-1: Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalk Placement
911

APPENDIX D
22 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
Figure A-2: Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations
912

APPENDIX D
23 Uncontrolled Crossing Enhancement
Toolbox
This section presents best practices for the installation of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections and mid-block locations.

Uncontrolled crossings require additional consideration during planning and design as drivers must recognize the pedestrian and yield accordingly.

Thus, providing appropriate enhancements to improve the visibility and safety of pedestrians crossing the street at an uncontrolled location is critical.

Crosswalk Safety Research
Several studies of pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossings have been completed, from which conflicting research has at times emerged. Studies conducted in San Diego in the 1970s showed that pedestrian collision risk at marked, uncontrolled crosswalks was greater than at unmarked crossings. This led many cities to remove marked crosswalks, as they were suspected of providing a false sense of security that drivers would yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. However, a more recent study13 by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) comprehensively reviewed crossing safety at 1,000 marked and 1,000 matched unmarked crosswalks in 30 U.S. cities, controlling for site context factors. The study concluded

13 Zeeger, C., J. Stewart, and H. Huang. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. Publication FHWA-RD-01-142, FHWA, U.S.

Department of Transportation, 2001.
that site factors related to pedestrian-involved collisions included pedestrian average daily traffic (ADT), vehicle ADT, number of lanes, median type, and the region of the U.S. At uncontrolled locations on twolane roads and multi-lane roads with ADT below 12,000 vehicles, FHWA found that the presence of a marked crosswalk alone, compared with an unmarked crosswalk, made no statistically significant difference in the pedestrian crash rate. However, on multi-lane roads with an ADT of greater than 12,000 vehicles (without a raised median) and 15,000 vehicles (with a raised median) the presence of a marked crosswalk without other improvements was associated with a statistically significant higher rate of pedestrian collisions compared to sites with an unmarked crosswalk.

These findings are summarized in Table X.

FHWA stressed that the results of the study should not encourage decision makers to simply remove (or fail to install) marked crosswalks. Rather, the Mid-Block Crossings
Crosswalks can be marked at intersections and mid-block points. Mid-block crossings play an important role for pedestrian access; without mid-block crossing locations, pedestrians may face the undesirable choice to detour to a controlled crossing location, detour to an intersection where crossing is legal even if not controlled, or cross illegally (if the midblock crossing is between two signalized intersections). Where signals are spaced far apart (generally more than 600-800 feet), pedestrians may have to detour several minutes to a controlled crossing location. Pedestrians are more likely to wait for a gap in traffic and cross at an unmarked location, rather than travel a distance out of their way to find a marked crosswalk. Mid-block crossings also offer an important safety consideration: fewer potential conflict points between pedestrians and motorists. 913

APPENDIX D
24 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
study suggested adding crosswalk enhancements to the marked crosswalks to balance mobility needs with safety needs. These improvements include providing raised medians on multi-lane roads, installing traffic and pedestrian signals where warranted, adding curb extensions, providing adequate lighting, and designing intersections with tighter turn radii.

In the FHWA study, about 70 percent of the pedestrian crashes occurred at marked crosswalks on multi-lane roads. Of the pedestrian crashes at marked crosswalks, 17.6 percent were classified as multiple-threat collisions. Multiple-threat collisions occur as one car slows down to allow pedestrians to cross, but a second car approaching from behind in the adjacent lane may not see the pedestrian, as illustrated in the image to the right. The slowing vehicle blocks the sight line of both the pedestrian and the second motorist, leading to the pedestrian-vehicle collision. Multi-lane roadways are therefore not well-served by unmarked or marked crosswalks alone. At these sites, the study concluded, engineers should consider countermeasures that provide additional safety to pedestrians and alert motorists to upcoming crosswalks. These countermeasures include advanced yield lines with corresponding signs informing motorists where to yield. Other more substantial measures may also be considered, such as signalization, warning beacons, illumination, or raised medians.

Multiple threat conflicts on multi-lane roadways occur where a vehicle yielding to a pedestrian inhibits sight lines to another oncoming vehicle.
914

APPENDIX D
25 915

APPENDIX D
26 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
With these studies as a backdrop, these Guidelines outline a decision making process to identify appropriate treatments for uncontrolled locations and presents a variety of treatment options to mitigate safety, visibility, or operational concerns at specific locations.

Treatment Selection
At uncontrolled locations, a marked crosswalk with striping alone may not provide adequate visibility to the pedestrian crossing, especially at high volume, high speed, or multi-lane crossings. Enhancements should be considered for installation to supplement crosswalk striping. Appropriate treatments should be identified based on:
 Site characteristics: presence of pedestrian desire lines, available sight distance and visibility, lighting
 Geometric configuration of the roadway: number of vehicle travel lanes and presence of curb extensions or median refuge islands  Travel data: 85th percentile speeds, posted speed limits, and average daily traffic (ADT) volumes.

Marked crosswalks alone should not be installed on multi-lane streets (two or more lanes per direction; three or more lanes total) under the following conditions14
:
 Speeds of greater than 40 miles per hour

14 California MUTCD, Section 3B. 18.
 Average daily traffic volumes (ADT) greater than 12,000 without a raised median or pedestrian refuge island
 Average daily traffic volumes (ADT) greater than 15,000 with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island
Locations with speeds and ADT volumes below these thresholds may also warrant enhancements. The Uncontrolled Treatment Toolbox outlines considerations for the use of enhancements in various contexts as summarized in Table D-11. This Toolbox may be used to identify potential treatments at a candidate uncontrolled crosswalk location based on the results of Figures A-1 and A-2.

A calculation of Pedestrian Level of Service forms the basis for the treatment identification. Pedestrian Level of Service is the average delay experienced by pedestrians as they are waiting to cross the street.

Expected motorist compliance is another other key variable for treatment identification. Compliance is based on field observations and engineering judgment. It is meant to reflect typical motorist responses to pedestrians attempting to cross the street. If drivers are likely to stop for a pedestrian, the compliance is rated “high.” If drivers rarely stop for pedestrians, compliance is “low.” The compliance rate should be assumed to be low for all locations where the speed limit is greater than 30 MPH. Table 5 summarizes the appropriate treatments based on level of enhancement needed (with the most significant enhancement required with the worst LOS and compliance rates).
916

APPENDIX D
27 TABLE D-11:

APPLICATION OF ENHANCED TREATMENTS FOR UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS Pedestrian Level of Service
Expected Motorist Compliance
Low
(or Speed >30 mph) Moderate High

LOS A-D
(average delay up to 30
seconds)
LEVEL 3
2 lane road: In-pavement flashers,
overhead flashing beacons
Multi-lane road: RRFB
Plus LEVELS 1 and 2
LEVEL 2
Curb Extensions, Bus Bulb, Reduced
Curb Radii, Staggered Pedestrian
Refuge
Plus LEVEL 1
LEVEL 1
High Visibility Crosswalk Markings, Advanced Yield Lines, Advance Signage

LOS E-F
(average delay greater than 30
seconds)
LEVEL 4
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, RRFB,
or Direct Pedestrians to Nearest
Safe Crossing
Plus LEVELS 1 and 2
LEVEL 3
2 lane road: In-pavement flashers,
overhead flashing beacons
Multi-lane road: RRFB
Plus LEVELS 1 and 2
LEVEL 2
Curb Extensions, Reduced Curb Radii, Staggered Pedestrian Refuge
Plus LEVEL 1
Notes: A pedestrian refuge island (median) is recommended for consideration in all scenarios with more than 2 lanes of traffic.

Level 1 represents a minor intervention, appropriate for situations with lower speeds and traffic volumes and high driver yielding rates. Higher levels represent more significant interventions. Treatments should be combined with higher level treatments added to lower level treatments (i.e., flashing beacons with curb extensions). Additional funding sources should be identified as needed for these enhancements. Failing to provide an enhanced crosswalk when needed and/or removing a marked crosswalk should be an option of last resort.

Treatment Options
The following tables described preferred pedestrian safety treatments for uncontrolled locations with different roadway characteristics:
 Table D-12: Geometric Treatments
 Table D-13: Striping and Signage
 Table D-14: Signal Hardware and Operational Measures
Within each table, devices are categorized in three levels based on the level of safety concern they are meant to address: Level 1 (all cases), Level 2 (enhancements), and Level 3 (advanced enhancements). Categories of improvements are cumulative; for example, a Level 2 device should also include appropriate Level 1 devices.
917

APPENDIX D
28 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-12:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
2-1. Fewer Travel Lanes (“Road Diet”)
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Fewer travel lanes decrease roadway width and
crosswalk length, reduce speeds, reduce left-turn and
rear-end collisions, and often eliminate the multiplethreat collision. It takes an average pedestrian almost four seconds to cross each additional travel lane.

Therefore, reducing the number of travel lanes
minimizes the amount of time that pedestrians are in the crosswalk. More travel lanes than necessary can also
increase vehicle travel speeds; research has shown that the severity of pedestrian collisions increases with
vehicle travel speed. Where fewer travel lanes are not
possible, travel lanes can be narrowed to as little as nine feet, especially left- and right-turn pockets.

Level 1
$20/LF
(Includes removal of
existing pavement
markings and
repainting. Assumes
existing curbs remain
as is)
918

APPENDIX D
29 TABLE D-12:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
2-2. Removal of Sight-Distance Obstructions
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
If objects impede sight-distance, this may result in an unsafe condition where motorists and pedestrians are
unable to see each other. Items such as parked cars,
signage, landscaping, fencing, and street furniture should be placed in a location that will not obstruct sight
distance.

Level 1
$150/EA
(Item removed is
anticipated to be no
larger than a sign and
post)
919

APPENDIX D
30 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-12:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
2-3. Pedestrian Refuge Island
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Raised islands are placed in the center of the roadway
separating opposing lanes of traffic with cutouts or
ramps for accessibility along the pedestrian path.

Median refuge islands are recommended where right-ofway allows and conditions warrant. Studies show medians are one of the most important safety
enhancements available for crosswalks. They simplify
complicated multi-lane crossings by breaking the
crossings/conflicts into two stages.

Level 1
$130/LF
(New curb and new
concrete barrier.

Assumes 6 foot
median)
920

APPENDIX D
31 TABLE D-12:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
2-4. Curb Extensions
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Curb extensions extend the curb and sidewalks further
into the roadway, shortening the length of the
crosswalk. They act as a traffic calming device by
narrowing the effective width of the roadway and
slowing turning speeds. Because they extend into the
roadway, often past parallel-parked vehicles, they
improve visibility for pedestrians. The also provide space for street furniture, landscaping, bicycle parking, and signs and signal poles. Curb extensions can be
constructed with reduced curb radii and to
accommodate ADA improvements, such as directional
curb ramps.

Level 1
$140/LF
(Curb, sidewalk,
removal of existing
curb, new bollards,
does not include curb
ramps)
921

APPENDIX D
32 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-12:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
2-5. Split Pedestrian Crossover (SPXO)
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
This measure is similar to traditional median refuge
islands; the difference is that the crosswalks in the
roadway are staggered such that a pedestrian crosses
half of the street and then walks toward traffic to reach the second half of the crosswalk. This measure must be
designed for accessibility by including rails and truncated domes to direct sight-impaired pedestrians along the
path of travel.

Level 1
Note: see Table 11 for
a Pedestrian Signal
$130/LF
(Same materials as 6-
3)
2-6. Raised Crosswalk
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Raised crosswalks are speed tables (flat-topped speed
humps) outfitted with crosswalk markings and signage,
providing pedestrians with a level street crossing. By
raising the level of the crossing, vehicles drive more
slowly through the crosswalk and pedestrians are more
visible to approaching motorists.

Level 2 $18,000/EA
922

APPENDIX D
33 TABLE D-12:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
2-7. Pedestrian Overpass/Underpass
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
This measure consists of a pedestrian or
pedestrian/bicycle overpass or underpass of a roadway.

It provides complete separation from motor vehicle
traffic, normally where no other pedestrian facility is available, and connects off-road trails and paths across major barriers. Overpasses and underpasses should be
used as a measure of last resort because of their cost
and barriers to their effective/efficient use, with
topographical and desire line considerations influencing their design. The cost of an undercrossing compared to
an overcrossing can vary depending on multiple factors.

On a busy roadway, an undercrossing will likely be more expensive than an overcrossing because of construction
staging costs, and undercrossings can vary in cost
depending on the presence of underground utilities and
groundwater. The cost of either improvement will
increase depending on desired aesthetics.

Level 3 $300/SF
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.
923

APPENDIX D
34 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-13:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
3-1. High Visibility Markings
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
All uncontrolled marked crosswalks should feature highvisibility markings. Various striping patterns are available. At trail crossings, such as at the Vine Trail, a triple-four crossing with bicycle stencils in the middle to denote a shared crosswalk for bicyclist s and pedestrians should be considered.

Level 1 $6/Foot
924

APPENDIX D
35 TABLE D-13:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
3-2. Advanced Yield Line
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Advanced yield lines, often referred to as “sharks teeth”, should be striped at all marked, uncontrolled crosswalks on multi-lane roadways. They should be placed 20-30
feet in front of the crosswalk. Their intention is to
identify where vehicles should stop when yielding to a
pedestrian to maintain adequate sight lines. These are
typically use on multi-lane roadways but could be
considered on two-lane roadways were driver
encroachment and yielding are a concern. They should
be used with the “Yield Here to Pedestrians” sign.

Level 1 $100/EA
925

APPENDIX D
36 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-13:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
3-3. Advanced Warning Signs
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
High-visibility yellow or fluorescent-yellow-green (FYG) signs are posted at crossings to increase the visibility of a pedestrian crossing.

Level 1 $1,000/EA
926

APPENDIX D
37 TABLE D-13:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
3-4. In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign
Image Source: FHWA
This measure involves posting regulatory pedestrian
signage on lane edge lines and/or road centerlines. The in-street pedestrian crossing sign may be used to remind road users of laws regarding right-of-way at an
uncontrolled pedestrian crossing. They can be installed on medians and may also be temporary signs, placed by
school crossing guards during school hours.

Level 1 $400/EA
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.
927

APPENDIX D
38 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-14:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: BEACON, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAL TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
4-1. Pedestrian-Scale Lighting
Image source: www.ci.mil.wi.us
Pedestrian-scale lighting improves visibility along a
pedestrian’s path and across driveways. It also improves visibility at pedestrian/vehicle conflict points in
crosswalks.

Level 1
$10,000 per light
assuming light every
100 feet
928

APPENDIX D
39 TABLE D-14:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: BEACON, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAL TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
4-2. Flashing Beacon
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Flashing amber lights are installed on overhead or postmounted signs, in advance of the crosswalk or at the crosswalk’s entrance. Full-time flashing beacons are not recommended; flashing beacons are most effective
when they are activated by the crosswalk user (they
should rest on dark). By resting on dark, they can also be solar powered.

Level 2 $20,000/EA
929

APPENDIX D
40 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-14:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: BEACON, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAL TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
4-3. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
The RRFB is an enhancement of the flashing beacon that
replaced the traditional slow flashing incandescent
lamps with rapid flashing LED lamps. The RRFB may be
push-button activated or activated with passive
detection. This treatment was approved for use in
California via Interim Approval IA-11-83 in 2011. Any
installations should be reported to Caltrans for
documentation, but do not require pre-approval for
experimentation.

Level 2 $20,000/EA
930

APPENDIX D
41 TABLE D-14:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: BEACON, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAL TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
4-4. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
Image Source: FHWA
The PHB is a pedestrian-activated beacon that is a
combination of a beacon flasher and a traffic control
signal. When actuated, the PHB displays a yellow
(warning) indication followed by a solid red indication.

During the pedestrian clearance interval, the driver sees a flashing red “wig-wag” pattern until the clearance
interval has ended and the beacon goes dark. The device is included in the 2012 California MUTCD for use at
midblock locations.

Level 3 $80,000/EA
931

APPENDIX D
42 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-14:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: BEACON, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAL TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
4-5. Pedestrian Signal
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
A pedestrian signal is a conventional traffic control
device with warrants for use based on the MUTCD. The
pedestrian warrants were revised with the 2009 Federal
and 2012 California MUTCD.

Level 4 $250,000/EA
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.
932

APPENDIX D
43 Controlled Crosswalk Treatment Toolbox
Controlled crosswalks are located at stop-controlled or signalized intersections. Generally, these crossings do not need enhancements beyond standard crosswalk markings (two parallel lines), as the traffic signal or stop-sign controls allocation of right-of-way. However, in some cases, such as in the Downtown, at skewed intersections, or near schools, the City may consider providing enhanced crossings or signal adjustments to create a sense of place or improved aesthetics, or to improve visibility or safety. This chapter presents preferred and enhanced measures for pedestrian treatments at controlled locations to:
 Improve the visibility of pedestrians to motorists and vice-versa  Communicate to motorists and pedestrians who has the right-ofway  Accommodate vulnerable populations such as the disabled, children, and the elderly
 Reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles
 Reduce vehicular speeds at locations with potential pedestrian conflicts
All treatments identified in this chapter are required or allowed by the standards and specifications in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).

Universal Considerations
The following treatments are identified as the basic pedestrian crossing improvements to be provided at all stop-controlled and signalized intersections. New controlled intersections should be designed with these treatments included; existing controlled intersections that require retrofits may be prioritized and upgraded as funds become available. These treatments are based on recommended best practices in pedestrian safety:15
 Mark crosswalks on all legs of the intersection
 Provide advanced stop bars with each crosswalk
 Minimize the number of vehicle traffic lanes pedestrians must cross
 Provide median refuge islands and thumbnails, as width and path of turn maneuvers allow
 Remove sight-distance obstructions
 Provide directional curb ramps for each crosswalk (e.g., two per corner)
 Eliminate free right-turn slip lanes, where feasible, and mitigate for pedestrian safety (slowing speeds) where they remain  Locate bus stops on the far-side of the intersection (or in front of mid-block crossings)
 Minimize cycle lengths

15 See America Walks Signalized Intersection Enhancements that Benefit Pedestrians http://americawalks.org/wp-content/upload/America-WalksSignalized-Intersection-Enhancement-Report-Updated-8.16.2012.pdf (2012). 933

APPENDIX D
44 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
 Reduce prevalence or eliminate permitted signal phasing where pedestrian crossings exist
 Provide pedestrian signal heads for all crossings at signalized intersections
 Provide adequate pedestrian clearance intervals (crossing time) at signalized intersections
 Consider benefits of a roundabout (stop controlled or signalized locations) or signalization (stop controlled locations) for all users Signalized Crossing Enhancements
To create a transparent and consistent decision making framework, four issue-specific flow charts follow a multi-step process to determine an enhanced treatment “match” for the signalized intersection characteristics.

CHART A:

Actuated Signals Pedestrian Option Flow Chart
Use this flow chart whenever traffic signal actuation is used at the study intersection.

CHART B:

Left-Turns on Two-Way Streets Pedestrian Options Flow Chart Use this flow chart for new and retrofit signal installations, and where a conflict between pedestrians and left turning vehicles is observed/ apparent from collision data.

CHART C:

Right Turns on Two-Way Streets or Left Turns on One-Way Streets Pedestrian Options Flow Chart
Use this flow chart for new and retrofit signal installations, and where a conflict between pedestrians and right turning vehicles (or left turning on one-way streets) is observed/ apparent from collision data.

CHART D:

Pedestrian Scramble Flow Chart
Use this flow chart to supplement Chart B and Chart C as directed.

Intersection type and pedestrian conflict characteristics form the basis for completing Charts A, B, and C, and the applicable charts are then completed using existing and/or proposed intersection characteristics such as lane configurations, location along transit priority corridor, pedestrian and vehicle volumes, and signal phasing.

The first step of the left or right turn conflict flow charts is to determine if the pedestrian to vehicle conflict volume levels meet minimum pedestrian scramble considerations, which could lead to completion of the pedestrian scramble test (Chart D) or continuation on the original flow chart (Chart B or Chart C). If the scramble flow chart is completed and passed (with operations analysis performed), a pedestrian scramble phase is the recommended treatment. If the scramble flow chart is not completed, the inputs listed above will lead to identification of various pedestrian treatments as resolution to the specified conflicts.

Flow Chart A that is completed for all actuated signals recommends different signal timing pedestrian recall treatments based on the signal’s location, such as a downtown location.

934

APPENDIX D
45 935

APPENDIX D
46 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
936

APPENDIX D
47 937

APPENDIX D
48 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
938

APPENDIX D
49 Flow Chart Footnotes

1. Time of Day Recall
 One surveyed city does only 24 hour recall
 Two surveyed cities run pedestrian recall only during the day or p eak hours when pedestrian volumes are higher.

2. Pedestrian Scramble with Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS)  In three cities surveyed, used at intersections with complex geom etry or two one‐
way street intersections with high pedestrian volumes.

3. Turn volume for protected left
 CA MUTCD section 4D.19

4. Left Turn Volume
 AASHTO section 12.1.1

5. Pedestrian Volume
 MUTCD section 4C.05 (pedestrian signalize intersection warrant) a nd 4F.01 (pedestrian hybrid beacon warrant)

6. Right Turn Volume
 CA MUTCD section 4D.07

7. Flashing Arrow Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) with APS  Used by one city surveyed to provide a balance between the delay of a protected left and the safety benefits of a protected left. Re quires a turn pocket.

8. LPI with APS
 Six cities surveyed have implemented LPIs at specific intersections , usually dependent on complaints/requests, collision history, and /or high vehicle turning and pedestrian volumes.

The following tables describe the preferred and optional enhanced pedestrian safety treatments that may be used for controlled locations:
 Table A-5: Geometric Treatments
 Table A-6: Striping and Signage
 Table A-7: Signal Hardware and Operational Measures
939

APPENDIX D
50 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-15:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description
5-1. Fewer Travel Lanes (“Road Diet”)
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Fewer travel lanes decrease roadway width and crosswalk length, reduce speeds, reduce left-turn and rear-end collisions, and often eliminate the multiple-threat collision. An average pedestrian takes almost four seconds to cross each additional travel lane. Therefore, reducing the number of travel lanes minimizes the amount of time that pedestrians are in the crosswalk. More travel lanes than necessary can also increase vehicle travel speeds; research has shown that the severity of pedestrian collisions increases with vehicle travel speed. Where fewer travel lanes are not possible, travel lanes can be narrowed to as little as nine feet, especially left- and rightturn pockets. 940

APPENDIX D
51 TABLE D-15:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description
5-2. Pedestrian Refuge Island with “Thumbnail”
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Median pedestrian islands provide a refuge for pedestrians to stand if they do not have sufficient time to cross a street. They can be enhanced with median pedestrian push buttons at signalized crossings. Median islands can be installed throughout a corridor or only at specific crosswalks.
941

APPENDIX D
52 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-15:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description
5-3. Removal of Sight-Distance Obstructions
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
If objects impede sight-distance, an unsafe condition may arise where motorists and pedestrians are unable to see each other. Items such as parked cards, signage, landscaping, fencing, and street furniture should be placed in a location that will not obstruct sight-distance.
942

APPENDIX D
53 TABLE D-15:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description
5-4. Directional Curb Ramps with Truncated Domes
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Curb ramps offer wheelchair access to/from the sidewalk and crosswalk. Truncated domes, or tactile strips, warn blind pedestrians that they are about to enter a crosswalk. The best practice for curb ramps is to install two per corner so that each ramp points directly into the crosswalk and to the curb ramp at the other side of the street. Corner bulbouts can be used to increase the amount of space available for directional curb ramps.
943

APPENDIX D
54 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-15:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description
5-5. Right-Turn Lane Design
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Free right-turns allow vehicles to turn right at high speeds. Since the vehicles are not typically controlled by the traffic signal in this circumstance, crosswalks across the turn lanes are usually uncontrolled crosswalks. Controlled right-turn movements are preferable for pedestrians because they require a vehicle to stop on red before turning right. Where “pork-chop” islands that channelize right-turns are necessary to provide acceptable turning radii, raised crosswalks are a pedestrian enhancement. Other options include signalizing the crossing (especially if it is multi-lane) and designing the “pork-chop” for slower speeds and better visibility of pedestrians. 944

APPENDIX D
55 TABLE D-15:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description
5-6. Far-Side Bus Stops
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Far-side bus stops allow pedestrians to cross behind the bus, improving pedestrian visibility. Far side bus stops also enhance transit operations by providing a guaranteed merging opportunity for buses. Exceptions for far-side bus stops include considerations for bus routing, sufficient sidewalk area, and conflicts with parking, land uses, or driveways.
945

APPENDIX D
56 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-15:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description
5-7. Curb Extensions
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Curb extensions extend the curb and sidewalks farther into the roadway, shortening the length of the crosswalk. They act as a traffic calming device by narrowing the effective width of the roadway and slowing turning speeds. Because they extend into the roadway, often past parallel-parked vehicles, they improve visibility for pedestrians. The also provide space for street furniture, landscaping, bicycle parking, and signs and signal poles. Curb extensions can be constructed to accommodate ADA improvements, such as directional curb ramps.
946

APPENDIX D
57 TABLE D-15:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description
5-8. Reduced Turn Radius
Image Source: AARP
Vehicles travel faster through turns with a large radius. Reducing the radius of a corner is an effective way of reducing vehicle speeds. In suburban environments, turn radii generally do not need to exceed 30 feet. In urban environments turn radii can be 10 feet or less, especially where the meeting of one-way streets prohibits turning movements. Where on-street parking is permitted and/or bicycle lanes are present on one or both streets, consideration for further reductions of radii should occur acknowledging that the effective radius is increased with on-street parking. Corner curb radii on multi-lane streets should acknowledge that trucks turning right can turn into two lanes.
947

APPENDIX D
58 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-16:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description
6-1. Marked Crosswalks
Image Source: Google Maps
Marking a crosswalk across all approaches of an intersection improves pedestrian accessibility. At a four-way intersection, a closed crosswalk forces pedestrians to cross via three crosswalks instead of one. Crosswalks on all approaches can often be accommodated without a significant impact to traffic signal operations.

At controlled trail crossings, high-visibility triple-four trail crossings with bicycle legends in the middle should be considered to indicate a shared crossing space for bicyclists and pedestrians.
948

APPENDIX D
59 TABLE D-16:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description
6-2. Advanced Stop Bar
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Advanced stop bars are placed five to seven feet in front of crosswalks. They keep vehicles from encroaching into the crosswalk when stopped at a red signal or stop sign.
949

APPENDIX D
60 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-16:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description
6-3. High Visibility Markings
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
High-visibility crosswalks at controlled locations are appropriate in areas with high pedestrian volumes, at crosswalks with skewed geometries, or near sensitive land uses (such as schools).
950

APPENDIX D
61 TABLE D-16:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description
6-4. Textured Pavement or Colored Crosswalks
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Textured pavement can be used in crosswalks or in intersections as an aesthetic enhancement. Because of its texture, it may also calm traffic by slowing vehicles before they cross an intersection. It can also make crosswalks more visible. Textured pavement can be made of brick or, alternatively, both concrete and asphalt can be stamped to look like brick or stone. At controlled locations, standard crosswalk striping should be provided in addition to the textured pavement. A smooth, non-slip surface is preferable. 951

APPENDIX D
62 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-17:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description
7-1. Adequate Crossing Times
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
The 2012 California MUTCD requires a walking speed of 3.5 feet per second be assumed to determine crossing times as a default minimum (4.0 feet per second was previously the guidance). A speed slower than 3.5 feet per second can be used where slower pedestrians routinely use the crosswalk, such as locations near schools, hospitals, or senior centers. 952

APPENDIX D
63 TABLE D-17:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description
7-2. Pedestrian Countdown Signal
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Pedestrian countdown signals give pedestrians “Walk” and “Don’t Walk” signals with a second-by-second countdown for each phase. Research suggests that pedestrians are more likely to obey the “Don’t Walk” signal when delivered using a countdown signal. The device has been shown to enhance safety for all road users. The 2012 California MUTCD requires that all new pedestrian signals be countdown signals.
953

APPENDIX D
64 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-17:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description
7-3. Pedestrian Signals and Push Buttons
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Mounting push buttons for different crosswalks on one pole can be confusing for blind pedestrians. Push buttons should be separated by ten feet and placed within five feet of each curb ramp, one per crosswalk. At long crosswalks (≥60 feet) with a median refuge island, push buttons can be placed in the median for pedestrians who may not be able to cross the entire crosswalk in one cycle length. In areas with high pedestrian volumes, eliminating pedestrian push buttons and providing a pedestrian phase in every cycle, can enhance walkability (and signal compliance).
954

APPENDIX D
65 TABLE D-17:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description
7-4. Short Cycle Lengths
Image Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Long cycle lengths at signalized intersections result in long pedestrian wait times to cross a street. By shortening an intersection’s cycle length, pedestrians do not have to wait as long to cross after pushing the button to request a “Walk” signal. 955

APPENDIX D
66 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-17:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description
7-5. Protected Left-Turns
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Where permitted left-turns are allowed, denoted by a “Left Turn Yield on Green” sign, leftturning vehicles can conflict with pedestrians in the crosswalk. By making the left-turn protected, so that it is allowed only with a green arrow, the “Walk” signal at a crosswalk occurs at the same time that through- and right-turning vehicles in the same direction receive a green light. This reduces the risk of left-turning vehicle conflicts with the opposing crosswalk; since left-turns typically occur at a higher speed than right-turns, collisions of increased severity can be avoided by protecting left-turns. 956

APPENDIX D
67 TABLE D-17:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description
7-6. Accessible Pedestrian Signals
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Accessible pedestrian signals (APS) and detectors provide information, such as “Walk” indications and direction of crossing, in non-visual formats to improve accessibility for blind pedestrians. Audible options for accessible pedestrian signals include audible tones and speech messages. Vibrotactile push-buttons are effective options that alleviate the impacts of noise created by audible pedestrian signals. They are also accessible to deaf pedestrians.

APS should always be provided when two push buttons are located on one pole and where persons with disabilities are expected frequently at a crossing. At other locations, APS is currently a best practice, but is expected to become a requirement when the proposed rulemaking of the Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) is finalized. 957

APPENDIX D
68 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-17:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description
7-7. Pedestrian Recall
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Pedestrian recall gives pedestrians a “Walk” signal at every cycle. No push-button or detection is necessary since a “Walk” signal will always be given. Pedestrian recalls are useful in areas with high levels of pedestrian activity. They demonstrate that an intersection is meant to serve both vehicles and pedestrians. In general, pedestrian recall should be used if pedestrians actuate a “Walk” signal 75 percent of the time during three or more hours per day. Recall can be used 24-hours a day or during peak hours for pedestrians (in which case push buttons should continue to be provided).
7-8. No Right Turn on Red
Image Source: FHWA
When attempting to turn right on red, motorists must look left to see if the road is clear; motorists often do not look right before turning and may not see pedestrians to their right.

Restricting right turns on red can reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. “Blank out” turn restriction signs (see 11-9 below) are more effective than conventional “No Right Turn on Red” signs. “No Right Turn on Red” signs that specify time-of-day restrictions or “When Pedestrians are Present” are confusing to motorists and are often disregarded. 958

APPENDIX D
69 TABLE D-17:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description
7-9. Blank-Out Turn Restriction LED Sign
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
The ubiquity of conventional turn restriction signs, usually for no right turn on red, contributes to their disregard by motorists. Blank out turn restriction signs activate only when the specified movement is prohibited. The LED sign is also very visible. 959

APPENDIX D
70 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-17:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description
7-10. Animated Eyes
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Animated eyes pedestrian signals feature eyes that move from side to side when a “Walk” signal is given. The signals remind pedestrians to look for turning vehicles before proceeding into the crosswalk. Research has indicated that animated eyes pedestrian signals reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
960

APPENDIX D
71 TABLE D-17:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description
7-11. Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) advances the “Walk” signal for a few seconds while through-vehicles continue to receive a red indication. By allowing pedestrians to get a head start into the crosswalk, it can reduce conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles.

The 2012 California MUTCD recommends that LPIs be at least three seconds in duration.

Right-turn on red restrictions may be needed with LPIs are installed in locations with lower pedestrian volumes.
961

APPENDIX D
72 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan
TABLE D-17:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description
7-12. Push Button for Extended Crossing Time
Image Source: FHWA
Some pedestrians may need extra time to safely cross a street. Traffic signals can be retrofitted to provide pedestrians with increased crossing time by extending the duration of a pushbutton press.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.
962
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (December 04, 2024) i NAPA
Countywide Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan
Containing Individual Plans for:

Angwin Airport – Parrett Field
Napa County Airport
Adopted by
Napa County Airport Land Use Commission
December 04, 2024
General Plan
Appendix 9-1
963
964
Napa Countywide Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan
Containing Individual Compatibility Plans for:

Angwin Airport – Parrett Field
Napa County Airport
Prepared for
County of Napa
Designated as
Napa County Airport Land Use Commission
Prepared by
Windsor, California | www.meadhunt.com
Adopted December 04, 2024
965
Napa Countywide

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN
The Napa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) comprises the five Napa County Planning Commissioners and two at-large members with aviation expertise, appointed by the Board of Supervisors.

Kara Brunzell, District 1
Dave Whitmer, District 2
Heather Phillips, District 3
Andrew Mazotti, District 4
Megan Dameron, District 5
Charles Koch, Aviation Expertise
Norman Brod, Aviation Expertise
Staff
Dana Morrison, ALUC Executive Officer
Wendy Atkins, ALUC Staff Liaison
Jason Dooley, Deputy County Counsel
Alexandria Quackenbush, Commission Clerk
Aime Ramos, Commission Clerk
Prepared for:

Napa County
Airport Land Use Commission
1195 Third Street, Suite 210
Napa, CA 94559
2024 ALUCP Update
Project Development Team (PDT) Members
County of Napa
Planning, Building & Environmental Services
Brian Bordona, Director
Sean Trippi, Supervising Planner
Dana Morrison, Supervising Planner
Wendy Atkins, Planner II
County of Napa
Napa County Airport
Mark Witsoe, Airport Manager
Kathrine Bales, Assistant Airport Manager
City of Napa
Planning Division
Ricky Caperton, Planning Manager
City of American Canyon
Community Development
Brent Cooper, Director
Pacific Union College
Angwin Airport – Parrett Field
Joy Hirdler, Vice President of Financial Administration Robert Edwards, Private Pilot
California Department of Transportation
Aeronautics Program, Office of Aviation Planning
Tiffany A. Martinez, Aviation Planner
Prepared by:

Mead & Hunt, Inc.
1360 19th Hole Drive,
Suite 200
Windsor, CA 95492
Mead & Hunt, Inc., Aviation Services
Maranda Thompson, Project Manager
Ken Brody, Senior Project Planner
Marieke Armstrong, Environmental Planner
Cheyenne Engelstad, Planner
Todd Eroh, Senior Technician
Krista Robertson, Technical Editor/Illustrator
966
TOC
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) i Table of Contents

CHAPTERS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Airport Land Use Commission Requirements............................................................................. 1-2

1.3 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Requirements.................................................................. 1-3

1.4 ALUCP Implementation Requirements ....................................................................................... 1-5

1.5 Compatibility Planning in Napa County....................................................................................... 1-9 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL POLICIES ............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Definitions......................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 General Applicability ....................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.3 Geographic Scope ............................................................................................................................ 2-9

2.4 Actions Always Subject to ALUC Review.................................................................................. 2-10

2.5 Actions Subject to ALUC Review Before Local Agency Attains General Plan Consistency ..................................................................................................................................... 2-10

2.6 Referral Process After Local Agency Attains General Plan Consistency .............................. 2-13

2.7 Limitations of this ALUCP........................................................................................................... 2-14

2.8 General ALUC Review Process................................................................................................... 2-17

2.9 Review Process for General Plans, Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and Building Regulations...................................................................................................................... 2-18

2.10 Review Process for Major Land Use Actions............................................................................ 2-20

2.11 Review Process for Airport Master Plans and Development Plans ....................................... 2-24

2.12 Process for Overruling the ALUC............................................................................................... 2-26 CHAPTER 3 COUNTYWIDE COMPATIBILITY POLICIES ...................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Criteria for Review of General Plans, Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and Building Regulations........................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Criteria for Review of Land Use Actions ..................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Noise Compatibility Policies........................................................................................................... 3-6 967

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024)

3.4 Safety Compatibility Policies .......................................................................................................... 3-9

3.5 Airspace Protection Compatibility Policies................................................................................ 3-20

3.6 Overflight Compatibility Policies................................................................................................. 3-26

3.7 Criteria for Special Circumstances............................................................................................... 3-28

3.8 Review Criteria for Airport Plans of Existing Airports............................................................ 3-32

3.9 Review Criteria for Proposed New Airports, Heliports, and Vertiports............................... 3-33 CHAPTER 4 ANGWIN AIRPORT – PARRETT FIELD COMPATIBILITY POLICIES AND MAPS .................... 4-1

4.1 Evaluating Land Use Consistency ................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Map Determinants ........................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Special Conditions Policies............................................................................................................. 4-2 CHAPTER 5 NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY POLICIES AND MAPS...................................... 5-1

5.1 Evaluating Land Use Consistency ................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Map Determinants ........................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Special Conditions Policies............................................................................................................. 5-2 CHAPTER 6 BACKGROUND DATA FOR ANGWIN AIRPORT – PARRETT FIELD AND ENVIRONS.............. 6-1

6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Airport Master Plan and Layout Plan Status................................................................................ 6-1

6.3 Surrounding Land Uses................................................................................................................... 6-3

6.4 Exhibits.............................................................................................................................................. 6-3 CHAPTER 7 BACKGROUND DATA FOR NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS ............................... 7-1

7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Airport Master Plan and ALP Status............................................................................................. 7-1

7.3 Surrounding Land Uses................................................................................................................... 7-6

7.4 Exhibits.............................................................................................................................................. 7-7 968

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) iii

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED TO AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING...........................................A-1 Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................A-1 Aeronautics Law........................................................................................................................................A-5 Planning and Zoning Law......................................................................................................................A-24 California Environmental Quality Act Statutes ..................................................................................A-82 Napa County Code of Ordinances.......................................................................................................A-90 California Energy Commission .............................................................................................................A-92 Legislative History Summary .................................................................................................................A-96 APPENDIX B TITLE 14 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PART 77 ..................................................B-1 Subpart A - General ...................................................................................................................................B-1 Subpart B - Notice Requirements............................................................................................................B-2 Subpart C - Standards For Determining Obstructions to Air Navigation or Navigational Aids or Facilities........................................................................................................B-5 Subpart D - Aeronautical Studies and Determinations ..................................................................... B-10 Subpart E - Petitions for Discretionary Review.................................................................................. B-13 APPENDIX C METHODS FOR CALCULATING USAGE INTENSITY..........................................................C-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... C-1 Usage Intensity Relationship to Other Development Measures........................................................ C-4 APPENDIX D GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST .................................................................D-1 APPENDIX E SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS......................................................................E-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... E-1 Airport Combining Zone Ordinance ..................................................................................................... E-1 Buyer Awareness Measures...................................................................................................................... E-1 APPENDIX F REFERRAL FORM.......................................................................................................F-1 APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................... G-1 Glossary ......................................................................................................................................................G-1 Acronyms..................................................................................................................................................G-10 APPENDIX H ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS ...........................................................................................H-1 ALUC Formation ......................................................................................................................................H-2 Adoption Resolution Angwin Airport..................................................................................................H-14 Adoption Resolution Napa County Airport........................................................................................H-17 969

TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024)

EXHIBITS
CHAPTER 3 COUNTYWIDE COMPATIBILITY POLICIES
Exhibit 3-1: Floor Area Ratio Calculation Example........................................................................3-13 Exhibit 3-2: Total Occupancy Calculation Example .......................................................................3-15 Exhibit 3-3: Proposed Land Use Split by Compatibility Zones.....................................................3-17 Exhibit 3-4: Transferring Usage Intensity .........................................................................................3-17 CHAPTER 4 ANGWIN AIRPORT – PARRETT FIELD COMPATIBILITY POLICIES AND MAPS Exhibit 4-1: Basic Compatibility Criteria, Angwin Airport – Parrett Field.................................... 4-5 Exhibit 4-2: Compatibility Policy Map, Angwin Airport – Parrett Field........................................ 4-9 Exhibit 4-3: Airspace Protection Map, Angwin Airport – Parrett Field.......................................4-10 Exhibit 4-4: Compatibility Zone Delineation for Angwin Airport – Parrett Field.....................4-11 CHAPTER 5 NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY POLICIES AND MAPS Exhibit 5-1: Basic Compatibility Criteria, Napa County Airport..................................................... 5-5 Exhibit 5-2: Compatibility Policy Map, Napa County Airport ........................................................ 5-9 Exhibit 5-3: Airspace Protection Map, Napa County Airport .......................................................5-10 Exhibit 5-4: Compatibility Zone Delineation for Angwin Airport – Parrett Field.....................5-11 CHAPTER 6 BACKGROUND DATA FOR ANGWIN AIRPORT – PARRETT FIELD AND ENVIRONS Exhibit 6-1: Airport Features Summary .............................................................................................. 6-5 Exhibit 6-2: Airport Layout Plan (2009).............................................................................................. 6-7 Exhibit 6-3: Airport Activity Summary ............................................................................................... 6-9 Exhibit 6-4: Compatibility Factors – Safety......................................................................................6-11 Exhibit 6-5: Compatibility Factors – Noise ......................................................................................6-12 Exhibit 6-6: Compatibility Factors – Airspace and Overflight ......................................................6-13 Exhibit 6-7: Airport Environs Information......................................................................................6-15 Exhibit 6-8: General Plan Land Use Designations..........................................................................6-17 Exhibit 6-9: Aerial.................................................................................................................................6-18 CHAPTER 7 BACKGROUND DATA FOR NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS Exhibit 7-1: Key Components of AAM Planning at Napa County Airport .................................. 7-5 Exhibit 7-2: Airport Features Summary .............................................................................................. 7-9 Exhibit 7-3: FAA-Approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP)...............................................................7-11 Exhibit 7-4: FAA-Approved ALP – Data Sheet..............................................................................7-12 Exhibit 7-5: Airport Activity Summary .............................................................................................7-13 Exhibit 7-6: Compatibility Factor – Noise........................................................................................7-15 970

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) v Exhibit 7-7: Compatibility Factor – Overflight................................................................................7-16 Exhibit 7-8: Compatibility Factors – Safety......................................................................................7-17 Exhibit 7-9: Compatibility Factor – Airspace Protection ...............................................................7-18 Exhibit 7-10: Flight Track Heat Map – Full Year..............................................................................7-19 Exhibit 7-11: Flight Track Heat Map – Arrivals and Departures Representative Quarter .............................................................................................................................7-20 Exhibit 7-12: Airport Environs Information......................................................................................7-21 Exhibit 7-13: General Plan Land Use Designations – County of Napa .........................................7-23 Exhibit 7-14: General Plan Land Use Designations – City of Napa and City of American Canyon ...........................................................................................................7-24 Exhibit 7-15: Aerial.................................................................................................................................7-25 APPENDIX B TITLE 14 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PART 77 Exhibit B-1: CFR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces.................................................................................. B-15 Exhibit B-2: CFR Part 77 Notification - FAA Form 7460-1......................................................... B-16 Exhibit B-3: Online Submittal of Form 7460-1: Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration......................................................................................................................... B-17

APPENDIX C METHODS FOR CALCULATING USAGE INTENSITY
Exhibit C-1: Occupant Load Factors - California Building Code ................................................... C-6 Exhibit C-2: Sample People-Per-Acre Calculations........................................................................... C-7

APPENDIX E SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS
Exhibit E-1: Avigation Easements.......................................................................................................E-2 Exhibit E-2: Sample Airport Combining Zone Components..........................................................E-4 Exhibit E-3: Typical Avigation Easement...........................................................................................E-5 Exhibit E-4: Sample Recorded Overflight Notification ...................................................................E-7

APPENDIX F REFERRAL FORM
Exhibit F-1: Actions Always Subject to ALUC Review....................................................................F-3 Exhibit F-2: Major Land Use Actions Subject to ALUC Review....................................................F-4 971

TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) This page left intentionally blank
972
1 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 1-1 Chapter 1Introduction

INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW
This 2024 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) updates and entirely replaces the ALUCP adopted by the Napa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in April 1991 and amended in December 1999 (1999 ALUCP). The need for the comprehensive update arose primarily because of a desire to bring the plan up to current standards, reflect current airport layout plans (ALPs), and address stakeholder needs. This 2024 ALUCP applies to lands around the two public-use airports in the county:
▪ Angwin Airport – Parrett Field
▪ Napa County Airport
In addition to these two airports, the 1999 ALUCP also contained compatibility policies for areas around the Calistoga Gliderport. This facility has since ceased to exist, and thus, none of the policies contained in the 1999 ALUCP remain in effect for that facility, and this document also does not apply to it.

The Compatibility Plan for each of the above two airports is contained in this document. To maintain commonality of wording, policies that apply equally to both airports are contained in Chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 2 focuses on ALUC procedural policies and Chapter 3 on compatibility policies and criteria. Policies and maps that apply distinctly to only one airport are found in Chapters 4 and 5 for Angwin Airport – Parrett Field and Napa County Airport, respectively.

As adopted by the ALUC, the basic function of
this ALUCP is to promote compatibility between
the two airports and future land use development
in their surrounding areas. The plan accomplishes
this function through establishment of a set of
compatibility criteria applicable to new development around each airport. Additionally, the ALUCP serves as a tool for use by the ALUC in fulfilling its duty to review plans, regulations, and Major Land Use Actions of local agencies for consistency with the ALUCP criteria. Airport development plans, including plans for any new heliport anywhere in the county, are also subject to review by the ALUC. However, neither this ALUCP nor the ALUC have authority over existing land uses or over the operation of the airports.

Note: Terms shown in italics in this
chapter and elsewhere in this document
are defined in Section 2.1 of Chapter 2
973
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1-2 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) The Airport Influence Area for each of the airports, as defined herein, extends roughly 1.5 to 4 miles from the airport runways. These influence areas encompass lands within three local government jurisdictions in Napa County:
▪ Napa County
▪ City of Napa
▪ City of American Canyon
These three local government jurisdictions—together with, any city, special district, school district, or community college district in Napa County that exists or may be established or expanded into any of the two Airport Influence Areas defined by this ALUCP—are subject to the provisions of the plan. 1

1.2 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS
The creation of ALUCs and the preparation of compatibility plans are requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act. 2 Provisions for creation of ALUCs were first established under state law in 1967 (see Appendix A for a copy of the current statutes). With limited exceptions, an ALUC is required in every county in the state. Furthermore, a compatibility plan is required for each public-use and military airport in the state, even in instances where an ALUC is not established.

Many of the procedures that govern how ALUCs operate are defined by state law. Statutory provisions in the Public Utilities Code establish the requirements for ALUC adoption of compatibility plans, which airports must have these plans, and some of the steps involved in plan adoption. The law also dictates the requirements for airport land use compatibility reviews by the ALUC. For example, the law specifies the types of land use and airport-related actions that local jurisdictions must refer for ALUC review.

1.2.1 ALUC Powers and Duties: Although the law has been amended numerous times since its original adoption, the fundamental purpose of ALUCs to promote land use compatibility around airports has remained unchanged. As expressed in the present statutes, this purpose is:
“...to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.” 3
The compatibility plans that ALUCs adopt are the basic tools they use to achieve this purpose. The ultimate objective of ALUCs, though, is to ensure that land use actions taken by local agencies also adhere to this purpose.
1 Public Utilities Code Section 21670(f).
2 Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.
3 Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a)(2).
974
INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 1-3 ALUCs pursue this objective by reviewing the general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, building regulations, and certain individual development actions of local agencies for consistency with the policies and criteria in the applicable compatibility plan.

ALUCs also review airport operators’ proposed master plans and other airport development plans—such as proposed nonaviation development of airport property that does not directly serve the flying public—to determine if those plans are consistent with the compatibility plan or if modifications should be made to the compatibility plan to reflect current airport planning.

1.2.2 ALUC Limitations: Two specific limitations on the powers of ALUCs are set in the statutes. First, as indicated above, ALUCs have no authority over areas “already devoted to incompatible uses.” 4 The common interpretation of this clause is that ALUCs have no jurisdiction over existing land uses even if those uses are incompatible with airport activities. An ALUC cannot, for example, require that an existing incompatible use be converted to something compatible.

The second explicit limitation is that ALUCs have no “jurisdiction over the operation of any airport.” 5 This limitation includes anything concerning the configuration of runways and other airport facilities, the types of aircraft operating at the airport, or where they fly.

1.3 AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN REQUIREMENTS

1.3.1 ALUCP Guidelines: With respect to airport land use compatibility criteria, the statutes say little. Instead, a section of the law enacted in 1994 refers to another document, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics. Specifically, when preparing compatibility plans for individual airports, designated bodies functioning as ALUCs “shall be guided by information”
6 in the Handbook. The Handbook is not
regulatory in nature, however, and it does not constitute formal state policy except to the extent that it explicitly refers to state laws. Rather, its guidance is intended to serve as the starting point for compatibility planning around individual airports.

The policies and maps in this ALUCP rely upon the guidance provided by the current edition of the Handbook (October 2011). The October 2011 edition of the Handbook is available for downloading from the Caltrans web site (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/aeronautics/documents/californiaairportlanduseplanninghandbooka11y.pdf). 4 Public Utilities Code Section 21674(a).
5 Public Utilities Code Section 21674(e).
6 Public Utilities Code Section 21674.7(a).
975
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1-4 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) An additional function of the Handbook is established elsewhere in California state law.

The Public Resources Code creates a tie between the Handbook and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Public Resources Code requires lead agencies to use the Handbook as “a technical resource” when preparing CEQA documents assessing airport-related noise and safety impacts of projects located in the vicinity of airports. 7

1.3.2 ALUCP Relationship to Airport Master Plans: ALUCPs are distinct from airport master plans, airport layout plans, and other types of airport development plans, but they are closely connected to them. An airport layout plan is a drawing showing existing facilities and planned improvements. Airport master plans primarily address on-airport issues.

The purpose of airport master plans is to assess the demand for airport facilities and guide the development necessary to meet those demands. A typical airport master plan includes an airport layout plan drawing, but also provides textual background data, a discussion of forecasts, and an examination of alternatives along with a detailed description of the proposed development. Airport layout plans and airport master plans are prepared for and adopted by the entity that owns and/or operates the airport. Most large, publicly owned airports have an airport master plan, but many smaller or private airports do not.

In contrast to airport layout plans and airport master plans, the focus of which is normally on on-airport concerns, airport land use compatibility plans mostly address offairport issues. The major purpose of a compatibility plan is to ensure that incompatible development does not occur on lands surrounding the airport. Compatibility plans are required to reflect the planned airport development and anticipated activity at least 20 years into the future. The responsibility for preparation and adoption of compatibility plans lies with each county’s ALUC.

The principal connection between the two types of plans stems from the California Public Utilities Code. 8 The statutes require that ALUC plans must be based upon a longrange airport master plan adopted by the airport owner/proprietor or, if such a plan does not exist or is outdated for a particular airport, an airport layout plan may be used with the acceptance of Caltrans.

The connection works in both directions. While a compatibility plan must be based upon an airport master plan, any proposed modification to an airport master plan must be submitted to the ALUC to determine whether the proposal is consistent with the compatibility plan. 9 Provided that the off-airport compatibility implications of the proposed modifications are adequately addressed in the master plan, the outcome of this process usually is that the ALUCP will need to be updated to mirror the new master plan.
7 Public Resources Code Section 21096.
8 Public Utilities Code Section 21675(a).
9 Public Utilities Code Section 21676(c).
976
INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 1-5

1.3.3 ALUCP Airport Activity Forecasts: In addition to the requirement that a compatibility plan be based upon the adopted airport master plan or state-approved airport layout plan, the Public Utilities Code says that a compatibility plan must reflect “the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years.” 10 Frequently, unless the master plan is very recent, its forecasts cannot be directly used because they do not cover the requisite 20-year time period. A final forecasting factor, therefore, is one pointed out in the Handbook:
“For compatibility planning, however, 20 years may be shortsighted. For most airports, a lifespan of more than 20 years can reasonably be presumed.

Moreover, the need to avoid incompatible land use development will exist for as long as an airport exists. Once development occurs near an airport, it is virtually impossible—or, at the very least, costly and time consuming—to modify the land uses to ones that are more compatible with airport activities.” (Handbook, p. 3-5.)
Chapters 6 and 7 of this document describe the activity forecasts upon which the individual ALUCPs for Angwin Airport-Parrett Field and Napa County Airport are based, respectively.

1.4 ALUCP IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS

1.4.1 Relationship of the ALUC to County and City Governments of Napa County: The fundamental relationship between the ALUC and the governments of Napa County and the cities affected by this ALUCP is set by the Public Utilities Code. For the most part, ALUCs act independently from the local land use jurisdictions. The ALUC is not simply an advisory body for the Board of Supervisors or City Councils in the manner that their respective planning commissions are. Within the bounds defined by state law, the decisions of the ALUC are final and are independent of the Napa County Board of Supervisors or City Councils. The ALUC does not need county or city approval in order to adopt this ALUCP or to carry out ALUC land use project review responsibilities.

However, the ALUC must consult with the involved agencies when establishing Airport Influence Area boundaries. 11
The responsibility for implementation of the ALUC-adopted ALUCP rests with the affected local agencies. In accordance with the Government Code, 12 Napa County and cities affected by the ALUCP must each make its general plan and any applicable specific plans consistent with the ALUCP policies. Alternatively, local agencies in the county can undertake the series of steps listed in the Public Utilities Code and described later in this chapter to overrule the ALUC policies.
10 Public Utilities Code Section 21675(a).
11 Public Utilities Code Section 21675(c).
12 Government Code Section 65302.3.
977
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1-6 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) The other responsibility of local agencies is to refer their plans and certain other proposed land use actions to the ALUC for review so that the ALUC can determine whether those actions are consistent with the ALUCP. Proposed adoption or amendment of general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, and building regulations always must be referred to the ALUC. However, Major Land Use Actions, such as those associated with individual development proposals, are subject to ALUC review only until such time as the local agency’s general plan and specific plans have been made consistent with the ALUC’s plan or the local agency has overruled the ALUC.

1.4.2 General Plan Consistency: As noted above, state law requires each local agency having jurisdiction over land uses within an ALUC’s planning area to modify its general plan and any affected specific plans to be consistent with the compatibility plan.

The local agency must take this action within 180 days of when the ALUC adopts or amends its plan. 13 The only other course of action available to local agencies is to overrule the ALUC using the process outlined in the next section.

A general plan does not need to be identical with the ALUC plan in order to be consistent with it. To meet the consistency test, a general plan must do two things:
▪ It must specifically address compatibility planning issues, either directly or through reference to a zoning ordinance or other policy document; and ▪ It must avoid direct conflicts with compatibility planning criteria.

To achieve consistency with this ALUCP, a Local Agency can address compatibility planning issues in one, or more of the following ways:
▪ Incorporate Policies into Existing General Plan Elements—One method of achieving the necessary planning consistency is to modify existing general plan elements. For example, airport land use noise policies could be inserted into the noise element, safety policies could be placed into a safety element, and the primary compatibility criteria, associated maps, and procedural policies might fit into the land use element. With this approach, direct conflicts would be eliminated and the majority of the mechanisms and procedures to ensure compliance with compatibility criteria could be fully incorporated into a local jurisdiction’s general plan.
▪ Adopt a General Plan Airport Element—Another approach is to prepare a separate airport element of the general plan. Such a format may be advantageous when a community’s general plan also needs to address on-airport development and operational issues. Modification of other plan elements to provide cross referencing and eliminate conflicts would still be necessary. 13 Government Code Section 65302.3(b).
978
INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 1-7 ▪ Adopt the ALUCP as Stand-Alone Document—Jurisdictions selecting this option would simply adopt the relevant portions of the ALUCP as a local policy document. Changes to the community’s existing general plan would be minimal.

Policy references to the separate ALUCP document would need to be added, and any direct land use or other conflicts with compatibility planning criteria would have to be removed. Limited discussion of compatibility planning issues could be included in the general plan, but the substance of most compatibility policies would appear only in the stand-alone document.
▪ Adopt an Airport Combining District or Overlay Zoning Ordinance—This approach is similar to the stand-alone document except that the local jurisdiction would not explicitly adopt an ALUCP as policy. Instead, the compatibility policies would be restructured as an airport combining or overlay zoning ordinance. A combining zone serves as an overlay of standard community-wide land use zones and modifies or limits the uses permitted by the underlying zone—flood hazard combining zoning is a common example. An airport combining zone ordinance can serve as a convenient means of bringing various airport compatibility criteria into one place.

The airport-related height-limit zoning that many jurisdictions have adopted as a means of protecting airport airspace is a form of combining district zoning. Noise and safety compatibility criteria, together with procedural policies, would need to be added to create a complete airport compatibility zoning ordinance. Other than where direct conflicts need to be eliminated from the local plans, implementation of the compatibility policies would be accomplished solely through the zoning ordinance. Policy reference to airport compatibility in the general plan could be as simple as mentioning support for the airport land use commission and stating that policy implementation is by means of the combining zone. An outline of topics that could be addressed in an airport combining zone is included in Appendix E.

1.4.3 Overruling ALUC Decisions: If an ALUC has determined that a local agency’s general plan is inconsistent with the ALUCP and the local agency wishes to adopt the general plan anyway, then it must overrule the ALUC. The statutes are explicit in defining the steps involved in the overrule process. This same process also applies if the local agency intends to overrule the ALUC with regard to a finding of inconsistency on proposed adoption or approval of a specific plan, zoning ordinance, or building regulation; an individual development proposal for which ALUC review is mandatory; or an airport master plan. 14
The steps that a local agency in Napa County must take to overrule the ALUC are set by state law and court decisions and are summarized below. Further discussion is contained in the Handbook.
14 Public Utilities Code Sections 21676(a), (b), and (c). 979
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1-8 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) (a) Specific Findings by Local Agency—When overruling the ALUC, the local agency must make specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of the ALUC statutes as set forth in the Public Utilities Code. 15 Such
findings may not be adopted as a matter of opinion, but must be supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the governing body of the local agency must make specific findings that the proposed project will not:
▪ Impair the orderly, planned expansion of the airport; ▪ Adversely affect the utility or capacity of the airport (such as by reducing instrument approach procedure minimums); or
▪ Expose the public to excessive noise and safety hazards. (b) Notification and Voting Requirements—In accordance with the ALUC statutes, the local agency must do all of the following:
▪ Provide to the ALUC and Caltrans a copy of the proposed decision and findings to overrule the ALUC at least 45 days prior to the hearing date. ▪ Hold a public hearing on the matter. The public hearing shall be publicly noticed consistent with the agency’s established procedures. ▪ Include any comments received from the ALUC, Caltrans, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Airport owner, or the public in the public record of any final decision to overrule the ALUC.
▪ Make a decision to overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote of its governing body.
(c) Liability—The ALUC statutes indicate that if a local agency other than the airport owner overrules the ALUC, then the agency owning and operating the airport “shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the local agency’s decision to overrule the ALUC’s compatibility determination or recommendation.” 16

1.4.4 Project Referrals: In addition to the types of land use actions for which referral to the ALUC is mandatory in accordance with state law—adoption or amendment of general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, or building codes affecting land within an Airport Influence Area—the Napa County ALUCP specifies other Major Land Use Actions that either must or should be submitted for review. These “major land use actions” are defined in Chapter 2. Beginning when the ALUCP is adopted by the ALUC and continuing until such time as local agencies have made the necessary modifications to their general plans, all of these major land use actions must be referred to the ALUC for review. After local agencies have made their general plans consistent with the ALUCP, the ALUC requests that these major land use actions continue to be submitted on a voluntary basis. The project referral procedures must be indicated in the local agency’s general plan or other implementing policy document in order for the general plan to be considered fully consistent with the ALUCP.
15 Public Utilities Code Section 21670.
16 See Public Utilities Code Sections 21678 and 21675.1(f). 980
INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 1-9

1.5 COMPATIBILITY PLANNING IN NAPA COUNTY

1.5.1 Napa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC): The Napa County ALUC was established in 1970 by Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 70-159 and pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1. Under this resolution, the Napa County Planning Commission and the Napa County Airport Committee jointly served as the Napa County ALUC.

The 1970 resolution was rescinded in 1975 by Resolution No. 75-51 and the Napa County Planning Commission, previously renamed as the Conservation, Development, and Planning Commission, was designated to act by itself as the ALUC. The Select Committee of Mayors for the County of Napa determined by majority vote that this designation was appropriate.

A subsequent 1987 change in the state statute dictated that when a designated body serves as the ALUC in a county, as was the case under the 1975 resolution, that body must be augmented by at least two members having “expertise in aviation” as defined in the statute. To fulfill this requirement, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 90- 22 in 1990. This resolution states that “anytime there is a change in membership of either the Napa County Conservation, Development, and Planning Commission or the Airport Land Use Commission, this Board shall determine how many members of the Conservation, Development, and Planning Commission have an ‘expertise in aviation.’” Further, “the Board shall augment, to the extent necessary, the Napa County Conservation, Development, and Planning Commission, whenever said Commission functions as the Airport Land Use Commission, by adding up to two persons to ensure that the Airport Land Use Commission is comprised of at least two members having an expertise in aviation as defined in California Public Utilities Code Section 21670(e).” The 1990 resolution remains in effect as of the time of adoption of the ALUCP contained in this document, and the ALUC is formatted accordingly as a “Designated Body.” 17 Copies of the resolutions are included in Attachment A.

1.5.2 Airport Plans for Napa County Airports: Napa County Airport is a public-use reliever airport, whereas Angwin Airport – Parrett Field is a public-use, privately-owned airport. In accordance with state law, the current and planned physical features and operational characteristics of each airport having implications for land use compatibility have been taken into account in the preparation of this ALUCP. The airport plan status differs for each airport in Napa County.
17 See Public Utilities Code Sections 21670.1(a).
981
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1-10 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) (a) Angwin Airport – Parrett Field: Angwin Airport – Parrett Field is a privately owned, public-use general aviation facility owned and operated by Pacific Union College (PUC or College). Angwin Airport – Parrett Field does not have a formal master plan. However, Napa County completed a Master Plan Feasibility and Alternate Site Selection Study—Angwin Airport/Parrett Field in 2010 that addressed whether the existing airport would meet long-term general aviation needs in the upper Napa Valley and included the development of an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) in late 2009. The college acknowledged in an April 21, 2023, letter that the 2009 ALP is an accurate representation of the airport’s existing conditions.

Furthermore, although the college has no existing plans for future development, they concurred that the ultimate conditions shown on the ALP can serve as the basis for the Napa County ALUCP future conditions. This ALP was accepted by the Caltrans for compatibility planning purposes in November 2023. The information contained in the 2009 ALP and supplemental data provided by airport personnel serve as the foundation for this ALUCP. Detailed background data pertaining to Angwin Airport – Parrett Field is presented in Chapter 6. (b) Napa County Airport: Napa County Airport is a general aviation facility owned and operated by Napa County. The County adopted a master plan for Napa County Airport in March 2007. Since publication of the master plan, updates have been made to the ALP drawing to reflect recent and newly proposed construction projects. The current ALP was approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in May 2016. The information contained on the 2016 ALP, together with supplemental information provided in the 2007 Master Plan and by airport personnel, form the foundation for this Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Napa County Airport. The 2016 ALP was approved by the Caltrans for compatibility planning purposes in November 2023. Detailed background data pertaining to Napa County Airport is presented in Chapter 7.

1.5.3 ALUCP Development Process: Major factors in the decision to prepare an updated ALUCP were the desire to clarify and enhance the ALUCP policies to improve local implementation of the plan by local jurisdictions and to reflect changes in airport operations and fleets and revised guidance from the State. Additionally, the ALUCP update needed to reflect the fact that Calistoga Gliderport was no longer in operation by removing all references from the Plan.

As required by California state law, the Handbook provides guidance for the compatibility policies set forth in this ALUCP. The Handbook was used both to structure and define compatibility criteria and to establish the procedures to be followed by the ALUC and local agencies in implementation of the criteria.

As noted above, the aeronautical data serving as the foundation of each ALUCP in this document are based upon an approved airport master plan or airport layout plan showing existing and proposed airport improvements over the requisite 20-year planning timeframe. With respect to aircraft activity projections, the ALUCP again relies upon data obtained from each airport regarding historic, current, and projected operations.

The activity forecasts are based on data obtained from current airport master plans and/or airport managers.
982
INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 1-11 Similar to what was done for the 1999 ALUCP, a technical advisory committee—this time called a Project Development Team (PDT)—was established specifically for the 2024 ALUCP update project. The PDT membership consisted of ALUC staff, airport representatives from both Napa County Airport and Angwin Airport – Parrett Field, and planning staffs from Napa County and the cities of Napa and American Canyon. The PDT assisted with providing airport and land use data, reviewing discussion papers and draft materials, and providing technical input for consideration in the administrative draft plan. Additionally, the PDT was charged with keeping their respective local jurisdictions informed of the ALUCP update progress.

1.5.4 ALUCP Contents: This ALUCP is organized into seven chapters and a set of appendices.

The intent of this introductory chapter is to set the overall context of airport land use compatibility planning in general and for Napa County in particular. The most important components of the plan are found in Chapters 2 through 5. Chapters 2 and 3 present ALUC procedural policies and compatibility policies applicable uniformly to each of the addressed airports. Chapters 4 and 5 contain the airport-specific compatibility maps and criteria for each airport together with individual policies for that airport. Chapters 6 and 7 present airport and land use background information regarding each of the airports.

Also included in this document are a set of appendices containing a copy of state statutes concerning airport land use commissions and other general information pertaining to airport land use compatibility planning. This material is mostly taken from other sources and does not represent ALUC policy except where cited as such in Chapters 2 through 5—specifically the state ALUC statutes and certain other laws (Appendix A) and Code of Federal Regulations Part 77 (Appendix B).

1.5.5 ALUCP Adoption and Amendment Process: As noted earlier, although contained within this single volume, this ALUCP consists of two separate ALUCPs, one for each airport addressed. With the adoption of the ALUCPs for Napa County Airport and Angwin Airport – Parrett Field, an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of each Initial Study was to identify the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the ALUCP following adoption. The issues addressed by each Initial Study included those identified in the 2007 California Supreme Court decision in Muzzy Ranch Company v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission, such as an assessment of the potential displacement of future residential and nonresidential land use development.

The Initial Studies, associated Negative Declarations, and Notice of Exemption associated with each ALUCP were circulated for a 30-day public review period that extended from June 17, 2024, through July 17, 2024. Written comments provided on the ALUCP and associated CEQA document during this timeframe up through the ALUC public hearing of December 4, 2024, were used to guide a final set of revisions to this ALUCP.
983
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1-12 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) Additionally, two hybrid public workshops on the draft 2024 ALUCP were held on November 16, 2023, and December 7, 2023; the first focused on the ALUCP for Napa County Airport and the second was more general, providing information on the ALUCP for both Napa County Airport and Angwin Airport – Parrett Field. The first workshop was noticed through direct mailings to property owners within areas with more restrictive criteria based on the draft zones. The second workshop was publicized by means of a block advertisement in local papers.

The ALUC held a formal public hearing on the draft ALUCP on July 17, 2024, which was continued until November 6, 2024, and again to December 4, 2024. The ALUC considered comments offered in writing during the document review phase and at the hearings, then formally adopted the ALUCP for each airport. See Attachments B and C at the back of this document for copies of the adoption resolutions. The 2024 ALUCP replaces the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan originally adopted in April 1991 and amended in December 1999.

A copy the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 4, 2024) and associated CEQA documents are available for review and comment on the Napa County ALUC website (https://www.countyofnapa.org/1603/Airport-LandUse-Commission). 984
2 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 2-1 Chapter 2 Procedural Policies

PROC EDURAL POLIC IES

2.1 DEFINITIONS
The following definitions apply for purposes of the policies set forth in this Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Where these terms apply to the policies appearing in Chapters 2 through 5, they are shown in italics. General terms pertaining to airport and land use planning are defined in the Glossary (Appendix G).

2.1.1 Actions/Projects/Proposals: These terms are similar in meaning and all refer to the types of Airport and land use planning and development activities (permanent or temporary), either publicly or privately sponsored, that are subject to the provisions of this ALUCP.

Other terms with similar meaning include Land Use Actions, Airport Actions, Major Land Use Actions, and Development Actions.

2.1.2 Aeronautics Act: Except as indicated otherwise, the article of the California Public Utilities Code (Section 21670 et seq.) pertaining to airport land use commissions and airport land use compatibility plans (also known as the California State Aeronautics Act).

2.1.3 Airport: Angwin Airport – Parrett Field, Napa County Airport, or any new public-use or military airport that may be created within Napa County.

2.1.4 Airport Influence Area/Referral Area: An area, as delineated herein for each Airport, in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The Airport Influence Area constitutes the Referral Area within which certain Airport Actions and Land Use Actions are subject to ALUC review to determine consistency with the policies herein.

2.1.5 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC): The Napa County Airport Land Use Commission or a legally established successor. The ALUC membership consists of the five Napa County Planning Commissioners together with two at-large members with aviation expertise, both appointed by the Board of Supervisors.

2.1.6 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Executive Officer: The ALUC Executive Officer of the ALUC or a person designated by the ALUC Executive Officer with the concurrence of the ALUC Chair.
985
CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL POLICIES
2-2 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024)

2.1.7 Airport Proximity Disclosure: A form of buyer awareness documentation required by California state law and applicable to many transactions involving residential real estate, including previously occupied dwellings. The disclosure notifies a prospective purchaser that the property is located in proximity to an Airport and may be subject to annoyances and inconveniences associated with the flight of aircraft to, from, and around the Airport.

See Policy 3.6.2 for applicability. Also see Policy 2.1.35 for a related buyer awareness tool, Recorded Overflight Notification.

2.1.8 Airspace Critical Protection Zone: The Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 Part 77 (CFR Part 77) primary surface and the area beneath portions of the approach and transitional surfaces to where these surfaces intersect with the horizontal surface together with the Airspace High Terrain Zone. See details in Policy 3.5.1(b).

2.1.9 Airspace High Terrain Zone: Areas of land in the vicinity of an Airport where the ground lies above a CFR Part 77 surface or within 35 feet beneath such surface. See details in Policy 3.5.1(c).

2.1.10 Airspace Protection Surfaces/Maps/Plans/Zones: Imaginary surfaces in the airspace surrounding an Airport defined in accordance with criteria set forth in CFR Part 77. 18 These surfaces establish the maximum height that objects on the ground can reach without potentially creating constraints or hazards to the use of the airspace by aircraft approaching, departing, or maneuvering in the vicinity of the associated Airport. The Airspace Protection Surfaces are depicted in the Airspace Protection Maps for each Airport addressed by this ALUCP and are presented in Chapters 4 and 5.

2.1.11 ALUCP/Compatibility Plan: This document, the Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which includes the individual ALUCPs for Angwin Airport – Parrett Field and Napa County Airport.

2.1.12 Aviation-Related Use: Any facility or activity directly associated with the air transportation of persons or cargo or the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft at an Airport, heliport, or vertiport. Such uses specifically include, but are not limited to, runways, taxiways, and their associated protection areas defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), together with aircraft aprons, hangars, fixed base operations facilities, terminal buildings, etc. Hotels or other commercial/industrial facilities on Airport property do not qualify as an Aviation-Related Use.

2.1.13 Avigation Easement: An easement that conveys rights associated with aircraft overflight of a property including, but not limited to, creation of noise and limits on the height of structures and trees, etc. (see Policy 3.7.1).

2.1.14 Building Regulations: Terminology used in state ALUC statutes. Also known as “building codes,” a set of rules that specify the standards for constructed objects such as buildings and nonbuilding structures.

2.1.15 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77 (CFR Part 77): The part of Federal Aviation Regulations as set forth in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace (CFR Part 77), that deals with objects affecting navigable airspace in the vicinity of airports. Objects that exceed the CFR Part 77 height limits constitute airspace obstructions (see Section 3.5). 18 See Policy 2.1.15.
986
PROCEDURAL POLICIES CHAPTER 2
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 2-3 CFR Part 77 establishes standards for identifying obstructions to navigable airspace, sets forth requirements for notice to the FAA of certain proposed construction or alteration, and provides for aeronautical studies of obstructions to determine their effect on the safe and efficient use of airspace. (See Appendix B of this ALUCP for the text of CFR Part 77; also see Appendix G, Glossary).

2.1.16 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The noise metric adopted by the State of California for land use planning purposes, including describing Airport noise impacts.

The noise impacts are typically depicted by a set of contours, each of which represents points having the same CNEL value (see Section 3.3 for policies regarding maximum acceptable CNELs for new development near Airports).

2.1.17 Compatibility Zone: Any of the zones depicted in the Compatibility Policy Map for each Airport in Chapters 4 and 5 for the purposes of assessing land use compatibility within an Airport Influence Area defined herein (see Policy 3.2.3).

2.1.18 Density: The number of dwelling units per acre. Density is used in this ALUCP as the measure by which proposed residential development is evaluated for compliance with noise and safety compatibility criteria (compare Intensity). Density is calculated on the basis of the overall site size (i.e., total acreage of the site).

2.1.19 Existing Land Use: A land use that, as of the effective date of this ALUCP (see Policy

2.2.4), either physically exists or for which Local Agency commitments to the proposal have been obtained, entitling the Project to move forward (see Policy 2.7.3).

2.1.20 Existing Nonconforming Use: An Existing Land Use that does not comply with the compatibility criteria set forth in this ALUCP. See Policies 2.7.3(c) and 3.7.3 for criteria applicable to Land Use Actions involving Nonconforming Uses.

2.1.21 Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The total floor area of a Project in square feet divided by the square footage of the site. For multi-floor buildings, the square footage of all floors is counted.

The floor area ratio methodology is intended as an aid in calculating the usage Intensity of nonresidential uses, as indicated in Policy 3.4.3(a).

2.1.22 Handbook: The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) published by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics 19. The Handbook provides guidance to ALUCs for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of ALUCPs.

2.1.23 Infill: Development of vacant or underutilized land (e.g., redevelopment or expansion of existing facilities) within areas that are already largely developed or used more intensively.

See Policy 3.7.2 for criteria used to identify Infill areas for the purposes of this ALUCP.

2.1.24 Intensity: The number of people per acre. Intensity is used in this ALUCP as the measure by which most proposed nonresidential development is evaluated for compliance with safety compatibility criteria (compare Density). Sitewide average Intensity is calculated on the basis of the overall site size (i.e., total acreage of the site). 19 As of the adoption date of this ALUCP, the latest edition of the Handbook is the October 2011 edition. 987
CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL POLICIES
2-4 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024)

2.1.25 Local Agency: Any county, city, or other local governmental entity, such as a special district, school district, or community college district—including any future city or district—having any jurisdictional territory lying within an Airport Influence Area as defined herein for the Airports covered by this ALUCP. These entities are subject to the provisions of this ALUCP (see Policy 2.2.6).

2.1.26 Major Land Use Action: Actions related to proposed land uses for which compatibility with Airport activity is a particular concern, but for which ALUC review is not always mandatory under state law. These types of Actions are listed in Policy 2.5.2.

2.1.27 Mandatory Land Use Action: Actions that require mandatory review by the ALUC. Pursuant to State law, these types of Actions include General Plan Amendments, Zoning Amendments, Specific Plans, Special District Facility Master Plans, Building Code changes, and airport planning projects (i.e., Airport Master Plans). A complete list of these types of Actions is located in Policy 2.4.1.

2.1.28 Minor Land Use Actions: Actions that involve a discretionary entitlement but are not defined as a Mandatory or Major Land Use Action. These types of Actions do not require ALUC review unless submitted to the ALUC on a voluntary basis as indicated in Policy 2.6.1(b).

2.1.29 Noise Impact Area: The area within which the noise impacts (measured in terms of CNEL) generated by an Airport may represent a land use compatibility concern. The noise impact areas for Angwin Airport – Parrett Field and Napa County Airport are presented in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively.

2.1.30 Noise-Sensitive Land Uses: Land uses for which the associated primary activities, whether indoor or outdoor, are susceptible to disruption by loud noise events. The most common types of noise sensitive land uses include, but are not limited to: residential, hospitals, nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, educational facilities, libraries, museums, places of worship, child-care facilities, and certain types of passive recreational parks and open space.

2.1.31 Object Free Area (OFA): An area on the ground surrounding an airport runway within which the FAA prohibits all objects except certain ones necessary for aircraft navigation or maneuvering. The OFA dimensions to be applied for the purposes of this ALUCP are as established by the FAA.

2.1.32 Occupancy Load Factor: The average number of square feet of building floor area occupied per person under typical peak-period usage. These numbers are used in Exhibit 4-1 and Exhibit 5-1 to aid in determining the Intensity of various land uses.

2.1.33 Overrule: An Action that a Local Agency can take in accordance with provisions of state law if the Local Agency wishes to proceed with an Action 20 in spite of an ALUC finding that the Action is inconsistent with this ALUCP. See Section 2.12 for the process required to Overrule the ALUC.

2.1.34 Reconstruction: The rebuilding of an Existing Nonconforming structure that has been fully or partially destroyed as a result of a calamity (not planned Redevelopment). See Policy 3.7.4. 20 Public Utilities Code Sections 21676(a), (b), and (c); and 21676.5(a). 988
PROCEDURAL POLICIES CHAPTER 2
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 2-5

2.1.35 Recorded Overflight Notification: A form of buyer awareness documentation recorded in the chain of title of a property stating that the property may be subject to annoyances and inconveniences associated with the flight of aircraft to, from, and around a nearby airport. Unlike an Avigation Easement (see Policy 2.1.13), a Recorded Overflight Notification does not convey property rights from the property owner to the Airport and does not restrict the height of objects. See Policy 3.6.1 for applicability. Also see Policy 3.6.2 for a related buyer awareness tool, Airport Proximity Disclosure.

2.1.36 Redevelopment: Any new construction that replaces the existing structures or use of a site, particularly at a Density or Intensity greater than that of the Existing Land Use. Redevelopment Projects are subject to the provisions of this ALUCP to the same extent as other forms of proposed development. Redevelopment differs from Reconstruction that is not subject to this ALUCP (see Policy 2.1.34).

2.1.37 Risk-Sensitive Land Uses: Land uses that represent special safety concerns irrespective of the number of people associated with the use (see Policy 3.4.9), specifically uses with vulnerable occupants, hazardous materials storage, or critical community infrastructure.

2.1.38 Vertiport/Vertistop: A facility intended to accommodate one or more landing pads and parking stalls for vertical take-off and land (VTOL) aircraft.

2.1.39 Wildlife Attractant: Any human-made structure, land-use practice, or human-made or natural geographic feature that can attract or sustain potentially hazardous wildlife within the approach or departure airspace or an Airport’s air operations area.

2.1.40 Wildlife Hazard: A land use feature and location that creates the potential to attract wildlife that may collide with aircraft or cause aircraft damage, injuries to passersby, or loss of human life.

2.1.41 Wildlife Hazard Critical Zone: The recommended separation area between air operations areas and potential wildlife hazard attractants as defined in the ALUCP based on airportspecific conditions and FAA guidance (see Policy 3.5.3).

2.2 GENERAL APPLICABILITY

2.2.1 Napa County ALUC: The five Napa County Planning Commissioners together with two at-large members with aviation expertise, both appointed by the Board of Supervisors, serve as the Napa County Airport Land Use Commission.

2.2.2 ALUCPs for Individual Airports in Napa County: With limited exceptions, California law requires an ALUCP for each public-use and military airport in the state. This document, the Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), contains the individual ALUCPs for the two existing public-use Airports located in Napa County. (a) The two public-use general aviation airports covered by this ALUCP are:
(1) Angwin Airport – Parrett Field, privately owned and operated by Pacific Union College.
(2) Napa County Airport, owned by Napa County and operated by the County’s Department of Public Works.
989
CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL POLICIES
2-6 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) (b) The policies in this document are divided into four chapters. The policies in Chapters 2 and 3 together with the respective airport-specific policies in Chapters 4 and 5 comprise the ALUCP for each Airport.
(1) Chapter 2 prescribes the procedures that the ALUC and Local Agencies within Napa County will follow in addressing airport land use compatibility matters. (2) Chapter 3 contains compatibility criteria and policies applicable uniformly to both Airports.
(3) Chapter 4 provides airport-specific land use compatibility policies for Angwin Airport – Parrett Field. The policies in this chapter consist of two maps plus compatibility criteria unique to the airport. (4) Chapter 5 provides airport-specific land use compatibility policies for Napa County Airport. The policies in this chapter consist of two maps plus compatibility criteria unique to the airport.
(c) This ALUCP also provides procedures by which the ALUC shall review proposals for new airports, heliports, or vertiports (see Sections 2.11 and 3.9). (d) There are no military airports in Napa County.

2.2.3 Basic Purpose: The basic purpose of this ALUCP is to establish procedures and criteria applicable to airport land use planning in the vicinity of the airports under jurisdiction of the ALUC. The ALUCP is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Aeronautics Act and guidance provided in the Handbook published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics in October 2011. 21

2.2.4 Effective Date: The policies herein are effective as of the date that the ALUC adopts the ALUCP for each Airport.
(a) The effective date of the respective ALUCP for each Airport is:
(1) Chapters 2, 3, and 4 for Angwin Airport – Parrett Field: December 4, 2024. (2) Chapters 2, 3, and 5 for Napa County Airport: December 4, 2024. (b) The previous ALUCPs for the two Airports addressed by this ALUCP were contained in the document entitled Napa County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which was adopted by the ALUC on April 22, 1991, and revised on December 15, 1999 (1999 ALUCP).
(1) The 1999 ALUCP for each Airport shall remain in effect until the ALUC adopts the respective ALUCP for each Airport contained in this document. (2) If the ALUCP for one or more individual Airports should be invalidated by court action, the preceding plan for the affected Airport(s) shall again become effective. The ALUCP for each unaffected Airport, as contained within this document, shall remain in effect.
(3) The Calistoga Gliderport, policies for which are also contained in the 1999 ALUCP, is no longer in operation and thus neither the former ALUCP nor the policies in this document are applicable.
21 Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.
990
PROCEDURAL POLICIES CHAPTER 2
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 2-7 (c) Any Project or phase of a Project that has received Local Agency approvals sufficient to qualify it as an Existing Land Use (see Policies 2.1.19 and 2.7.3) prior to the date of the ALUC’s adoption of the respective ALUCP shall not be required to comply with the policies herein. Rather, the policies of the 1999 ALUCP shall apply.

2.2.5 Use by ALUC: The ALUC shall:
(a) Formally adopt this ALUCP 22 and amend it as necessary to reflect current Airport plans. 23
(b) When a Land Use Action or Airport Action is referred for review as provided by Sections 2.4 and 2.5, make a determination as to whether such Action is consistent with the criteria set forth in this ALUCP.

2.2.6 Use by Affected Local Agencies:
(a) The policies of this ALUCP shall apply to each of the following affected Local Agencies (see Policy 2.1.25) in Napa County having jurisdiction over lands within all or parts of an Airport Influence Area defined by this ALUCP, specifically:
(1) The County of Napa.
(2) The City of Napa.
(3) The City of American Canyon.
(4) Any future city within Napa County that may be incorporated and have territory within an Airport Influence Area.
(5) Any existing or future special districts, school districts, or community college districts within Napa County to the extent that the district boundaries extend into an Airport Influence Area.
(b) The County of Napa, each of the affected cities, and any future city shall:
(1) Modify its respective general plan, applicable specific plan(s), zoning ordinance and building regulations to be consistent with the policies in the ALUCP.
24 (2) Utilize the ALUCP, either directly or as reflected in the appropriately modified general plan, specific plan, and zoning ordinance, when making planning decisions regarding proposed development of lands with an Airport Influence Area.
(3) Refer proposed Land Use Actions for review by the ALUC as specified by Policies 2.4.1 and 2.5.1 herein.
22 In accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21674(c). 23 In accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21675(a). 24 Public Utilities Code Section 21676(a) specifically requires general plan consistency. Because specific plans and zoning ordinances are also subject to ALUC review, the consistency requirement also extends to them. Also, Government Code Section 65302.3(a) requires that “The general plan, and any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as necessary, within 180 days of any amendment to the plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code.” Discussion regarding practical aspects of this time limit can be found in the 2011 Caltrans Handbook on page 6-2.
991
CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL POLICIES
2-8 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) (c) As owners of a public-use Airport, Pacific Union College and the County of Napa shall refer proposed airport master plans, airport layout plans, and other airport improvement plans for their respective airports to the ALUC for review (see Policy 2.4.1(b)).
(d) Special districts, school districts, and community college districts shall:
(1) Apply the policies of this ALUCP when creating facility master plans and making other planning decisions regarding the proposed development of lands under their control within an Airport Influence Area. (2) Refer proposed Land Use Actions for review by the ALUC as specified by Policies 2.4.1 and 2.5.1 herein.
(e) Entities proposing construction of a new public or private airport, heliport, or vertiport for which a State Airport Permit is required must submit the proposed plans to the ALUC for land use compatibility review (see Policy 2.4.1(b)(3)). 25 (f) All affected Local Agencies preparing an environmental document for any project within an Airport Influence Area shall address the compatibility criteria contained in this ALUCP in addition to referencing guidance from the Handbook. 26

2.2.7 Fees: Fees shall be established by the ALUC for the purpose of defraying costs of providing ALUC services. Any fees established by the ALUC may be reviewed annually by the ALUC or upon recommendation of the ALUC Executive Officer and adjusted as necessary. Projects subject to ALUC review shall be assessed per the current ALUC fee schedule.
27 2.2.8 Examples: Where an example is used in this ALUCP, such example or examples are provided for purposes of illustration only and any such example or set of examples are not intended nor shall such be construed as an exhaustive list of the subject matter to which it corresponds.

2.2.9 Inter-Agency Coordination in Napa County: The ALUC encourages the Local Agencies in Napa County to coordinate with each other on airport land use compatibility matters.

Specifically:
(a) Each entity owning an Airport in Napa County is advised to notify the ALUC and affected Local Agencies in Napa County when preparing or amending Airport plans and development activities.
25 Required by Public Utilities Code Sections 21661.5, 21664.5, and 21676(c) and California Code of Regulations Title 21 Sections 3525 et seq. This requirement applies to special-use airports and heliports such as hospital heliports. Agricultural airports, most personal-use airports in unincorporated areas, and certain other airports are exempt as specified in Code of Regulations Section 3533. The code defines a special-use airport or heliport as one that is “not open to the general public, access to which is controlled by the owner in support of commercial activities, public service operations and/or personal use.” A personal-use airport or heliport is one that is “limited to the noncommercial activities of an individual owner or family and occasional invited guests.” 26 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires environmental documents for projects situated within an Airport Influence Area to evaluate whether the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels of airport-related noise or to airport-related safety hazards (Public Resources Code Section 21096). In the preparation of such environmental documents, the law specifically requires that the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the California Division of Aeronautic be utilized as a technical resource.
27 Public Utilities Code Section 21671.5(f) allows for ALUCs to charge fees for project reviews. Resolution No. 21-45, which was passed on December 1, 2021, updates the fee schedule for the Napa County Airport Land Use Commission originally approved by Resolution No. 2019-70.
992
PROCEDURAL POLICIES CHAPTER 2
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 2-9 (b) The Local Agencies in Napa County are advised to notify the ALUC and the entity owning an affected Airport regarding Land Use Actions that may impact Airport operations.
(c) The ALUC shall notify the affected Local Agencies in Napa County when updating the ALUCP.

2.3 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE

2.3.1 Airport Influence Area: The influence area of each Airport established by this ALUCP encompasses all lands on which the uses could be negatively affected by current or future aircraft operations at the Airport as well as lands on which the uses could negatively affect Airport usage and thus necessitate restriction on those uses. 28 (a) In delineating the Airport Influence Area for each Airport, the geographic extents of four types of compatibility concerns are considered. The Compatibility Zones depicted in the Compatibility Policy Maps presented in Chapters 4 and 5 for Angwin Airport – Parrett Field and Napa County Airport, respectively, consider all four compatibility factors in a composite manner.
(1) Noise: Locations exposed to potentially disruptive levels of aircraft noise. (2) Safety: Areas where the risk of an aircraft accident poses heightened safety concerns for people and property on the ground.
(3) Airspace Protection: Places where height and various other land use characteristics need to be restricted in order to prevent creation of physical, visual, or electronic hazards to flight within the airspace required for operation of aircraft to and from the Airport.
(4) Overflight: Locations where aircraft overflying can be intrusive and annoying to many people.
(b) Other impacts sometimes created by airports (e.g., air pollution, automobile traffic, etc.) are not addressed herein and are not factors that the ALUC shall consider in reviewing land use projects.

2.3.2 Airport Growth Assumptions: The Airport Influence Area for each Airport covered by this ALUCP reflects the existing configuration of the Airport, planned airfield improvements, and projected aircraft activity covering the requisite 20-year planning horizon. 29 Chapters 6 and 7 document the aeronautical assumptions for each Airport upon which this ALUCP is based.

2.3.3 Referral Areas: The Airport Influence Area for each Airport covered by this ALUCP constitutes the Referral Area within which certain Land Use Actions and Airport Actions are subject to ALUC review to determine consistency with the ALUCP. See Sections 2.4 and 2.5 for the types of Actions subject to ALUC review. 28 The basis for delineating the Airport Influence Area is set by state law in Business and Professions Code Section 11010. 29 Public Utilities Code Section 21675(a).
993
CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL POLICIES
2-10 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024)

2.4 ACTIONS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO ALUC REVIEW

2.4.1 Mandatory Referral of Local Agency Actions: Prior to approving the types of Actions indicated in Paragraphs (a) and (b), the Local Agency always must refer the Action to the ALUC for determination of consistency with this ALUCP.
30 (a) Land Use Actions always requiring ALUC review include:
(1) Local Agency adoption or approval of any new general plan, specific plan, or facility master plan, or any amendment thereto, that affects lands within an Airport Influence Area. This includes actions that are applicable throughout a land use jurisdiction as well as for development proposals for an individual site.
(2) Local Agency adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation, including any proposed change or variance to any such ordinance or regulation, that (1) affects land within an Airport Influence Area and (2) involves the types of airport impact concerns listed in Policy 2.3.1(a). (3) Land Use Actions for which a Special Conditions Exception is being sought under Policy 3.2.4.
(b) Airport Actions always requiring ALUC review:
(1) Adoption or modification of a master plan (see Sections 2.11 and 3.8). 31 (2) Any proposal for “expansion” of an Airport covered by this ALUCP if such expansion will require an amended Airport Permit from the State of California (see Sections 2.11 and 3.8). As used in the statutes, “expansion” primarily includes construction of a new runway, extension or realignment of an existing runway, or related acquisition of land. 32
(3) Any proposal for a new airport, heliport, or vertiport, whether for public use, special use, or personal use, must be submitted for ALUC review if the facility requires a State Airport Permit (see Sections 2.11 and 3.9). 33

2.5 ACTIONS SUBJECT TO ALUC REVIEW BEFORE LOCAL AGENCY

ATTAINS GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

2.5.1 Interim Mandatory Referral of Major Land Use Actions: Before a Local Agency either makes its general plan, specific plans, zoning ordinance, or district facilities master plan consistent with the ALUCP or Overrules the ALUC's adoption of the ALUCP or consistency determination on a Land Use Action for which referral to the ALUC is required as enabled by law, the Local Agency must refer all Major Land Use Actions (see list in Policy 2.5.2) to the ALUC for review.
30 Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b).
31 Public Utilities Code Section 21676(c).
32 Public Utilities Code Section 21664.5 defines “airport expansion” as being “construction of a new runway,” “extension or realignment of an existing runway,” “acquisition of clear zones [runway protection zones] or of any interest in land for the purpose of [either of the above],” or “any other expansion of the airport’s physical facilities for the purpose of accomplishing or which are related to the purpose of [any of the above].”
33 See Footnote 25.
994
PROCEDURAL POLICIES CHAPTER 2
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 2-11

2.5.2 Major Land Use Actions: Under the conditions indicated in Policy 2.5.1, state law allows ALUCs to require Local Agencies to refer all actions, regulations, and permits involving land within an Airport Influence Area to the ALUC for review. 34 Rather than reviewing “all actions, regulations, and permits,” the ALUC has opted only to review a select list of Major Land Use Actions:
(a) Any of the following types of Land Use Actions proposed for land within Compatibility Zones A, B, C, D1 and D2 for Angwin Airport – Parrett Field and Compatibility Zones A, B1, B2, B3, C, D1 and D2 for Napa County Airport:
(1) Any action by a Local Agency seeking to expand its sphere of influence within an Airport Influence Area if the expansion includes or supports future land use development and does not merely extend service to existing land uses. 35 (2) Pre-zoning associated with future annexation of land to a city. (3) Infrastructure or other capital improvements (e.g., water, sewer, or roads) that would promote urban uses in undeveloped or agricultural areas to the extent that such uses are not reflected in a previously reviewed general plan or specific plan.
(4) Land acquisition by a Local Agency for any building intended to accommodate the public (e.g., a school or hospital).
(5) Development agreements or amendments to such agreements if they involve 1) lands within said Compatibility Zones and 2) the types of airport impact concerns listed in Policy 2.3.1(a).
(6) Nonaviation use of land within Compatibility Zone A (see Policy 2.1.12 for definition of an Aviation-Related Use).
(7) Residential development, including land divisions, consisting of 5 or more dwelling units or parcels.
(8) Nonresidential development having a building floor area of 10,000 square feet or greater.
(9) Development of a Project (permanent or temporary) expected to attract a congregation of people (including employees, customers/visitors) to outdoor activities at the project site.

For the purposes of this policy, a congregation of people is deemed to occur if, during a typical busy period, there would be more people present on the site than the number of people indicated as the maximum sitewide average intensity (people/acre) established for each Compatibility Zone at each Airport (see Basic Compatibility Criteria Exhibit 4-1 and Exhibit 5-1). Redevelopment (see Policy 2.1.36) if the Project is of a type listed in Paragraphs (1) through (9) of this policy.
(10) Infill development proposed for an individual site not previously approved by the ALUC (see Policy 3.7.2(d).
(b) Any of the following types of Land Use Actions proposed for land anywhere within an Airport Influence Area:
34 Public Utilities Code Section 21676.5(a).
35 A Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is not subject to ALUC compatibility review. 995
CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL POLICIES
2-12 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) (1) Objects (including buildings, antennas, and other structures) that receive a determination of anything other than “not a hazard to air navigation” by the Federal Aviation Administration in accordance with CFR Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (see Appendix B).
(2) Objects having the potential to create a physical airspace hazard (heights listed below are not absolute limitations, they are only thresholds for review) including:
▪ Any object within Compatibility Zone A or the Airspace Critical Protection Zone for either Airport;
▪ An object having a height of more than 35 feet within the Airspace High Terrain Zone for either Airport; or
▪ An object having a height of more than 150 feet within the CFR Part 77 airspace protection surfaces lying outside of the Airspace Critical Protection Zone for either Airport.
(3) Projects having the potential to create electrical or visual hazards to aircraft in flight, including:
▪ Electrical interference with radio communications or navigational signals; ▪ Lighting that could be mistaken for Airport lighting; ▪ Glare in the eyes of pilots of aircraft using an Airport; and ▪ Impaired visibility (such as from sources of dust, steam, or smoke) near an Airport.
(4) Projects having the potential to create a thermal plume extending to an altitude where aircraft fly.
(5) Projects having the potential to cause an increase in the attraction of birds or other wildlife that can be hazardous to aircraft operations in the vicinity of an Airport or protected airspace in the Airport vicinity and plans having the potential to foster such conditions. Examples of proposed land use Projects or Project features that are attractive to potentially hazardous wildlife are identified in Policy 3.5.3.
(c) Any proposed nonaviation development of Airport property if such development has not previously been included in an airport master plan or community general plan reviewed by the ALUC (see Policy 2.1.12 for definition of Aviation-Related Use).
(d) Any proposed construction or alteration of an object resulting in a height of greater than 200 feet above ground level regardless of location within Napa County.
36 (e) Any other proposed Land Use Action or Airport Action not listed above as a Major Land Use Action which, as determined by the Local Agency, involves a question of compatibility with Airport activities (e.g., a design review). 36 Project proponents are responsible for also notifying the FAA regarding these proposals. See Policy 3.5.5(b). 996
PROCEDURAL POLICIES CHAPTER 2
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 2-13

2.6 REFERRAL PROCESS AFTER LOCAL AGENCY ATTAINS

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

2.6.1 Voluntary Referral of Major Land Use Actions: After a Local Agency has revised its general plan, specific plans, zoning ordinance, or facilities master plan to be consistent with this ALUCP or has Overruled the ALUC, referral of Major Land Use Actions for ALUC review is voluntary. 37
(a) The scope or character of certain Major Land Use Actions, as listed above in Policy

2.5.2, is such that their compatibility with Airport activity is a potential concern.

Even though these Major Land Use Actions may be basically consistent with the local general plan or specific plan, sufficient detail may not be known to enable a full airport compatibility evaluation at the time that the general plan or specific plan is reviewed. To enable better assessment of compliance with the compatibility criteria set forth herein, the ALUC requests Local Agencies to continue to voluntarily refer Major Land Use Actions as listed in Policy 2.5.2 for informal review and comment. ALUC review of these types of Projects can serve to enhance their compatibility with Airport activity.
(b) Minor Land Use Actions that are discretionary but not included on the Major Land Use Actions list may also be referred on a voluntary basis. (c) The ALUC Executive Officer is authorized on behalf of the ALUC to provide comments on all Actions referred to the ALUC on a voluntary basis. The ALUC Executive Officer has the right to refer voluntary submittals to the ALUC for comment.
(d) Because ALUC reviews of Actions referred on a voluntary basis do not represent formal consistency determinations, as is the case with Actions referred under Policies 2.4.1 and 2.5.1, Local Agencies are not required to adhere to the overruling process if they elect to approve a Project without incorporating design changes or conditions recommended by the ALUC or ALUC Executive Officer.

2.6.2 Submittal of Environmental Documents: The ALUC does not have a formal responsibility to review the environmental document associated with Land Use Actions or Airport Actions referred to it for review.
(a) Nevertheless, the ALUC authorizes the ALUC Executive Officer to provide comments on environmental documents submitted to the ALUC for comment. (b) If an environmental document has been prepared at the time that a Land Use Action or Airport Action is referred for review and the document contains information pertinent to the review, then a copy should be included with the referral (see Policy

2.9.1).
37 Once a Local Agency either makes its general plan, specific plans, zoning ordinance or facilities master plan consistent with the ALUCP or Overrules the ALUC as enabled by law, the ALUC no longer has authority under state law to require that all actions, regulations, and permits be referred for review. However, the ALUC and the Local Agency can agree that the ALUC should continue to receive, review, and comment upon individual Projects.
997
CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL POLICIES
2-14 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024)

2.7 LIMITATIONS OF THIS ALUCP

2.7.1 Airport Operations: In general, neither the ALUC nor this ALUCP have authority over the planning and design of on-airport facilities or over Airport operations, including where and when aircraft fly, the types of aircraft flown, and other aspects of aviation. 38 Exceptions to this limitation are as follows:
(a) In accordance with state law, ALUC review is required for airport master plans and certain development plans to the extent that future Aviation-Related Uses (see Policy 2.1.12), facilities, or activities could have off-airport land use compatibility implications (see Policy 2.4.1(b)). 39
(b) Nonaviation development of Airport property is subject to ALUC review in the same manner that ALUC review is required for Land Use Development Actions off Airport property (see Policy 2.5.2(c)). The review may take place as part of an airport master plan or on an individual development project basis (see Policy

2.4.1(b)).

2.7.2 Federal, State, and Tribal Entities: Lands controlled (i.e., owned, leased, or in trust) by federal or state agencies or by Native American tribes are not subject to the provisions of the state ALUC statutes or this ALUCP. However, the compatibility criteria included herein are intended as recommendations to these agencies.

2.7.3 Existing Land Uses: The policies of this ALUCP do not apply to Existing Land Uses. 40 A
land use is considered to be “existing” if it physically exists or when one or more of the below conditions has been met prior to the effective date (see Policy 2.2.4) of this ALUCP.
(a) Qualifying Criteria: An Existing Land Use is one that either physically exists or for which Local Agency commitments to the proposal have been obtained in one or more of the following manners and is considered by the ALUC to have a vested right:
41 (1) A valid building permit has been issued and not yet expired or a Use Determination has been made by the County or City, as applicable; 42 (2) A use permit (e.g., conditional use permit) has been approved and not yet expired;
(3) Other discretionary entitlement has been approved and not yet expired, including the following: 43
38 This is an explicit limitation of state law under Public Utilities Code Section 21674(e). 39 Public Utilities Code Sections 21676(c) and 21664.5. 40 This is an explicit limitation of Public Utilities Code Sections 21670(a) and 21674(a). 41 Vested means “the irrevocable right to complete construction notwithstanding an intervening change in the law that would otherwise preclude it.” ([McCarthy v. California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 222, 230 (1982).)]. 42 A Use Determination recognizes existing entitlements, including the type of permit obtained. It does not confer any property rights. 43 According to the California Supreme Court, the right to develop becomes vested when all discretionary approvals for a project have been obtained and only ministerial (administrative) approvals remain [AVCO Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Commission, 17 Cal.3d 785, 791 (1976)]. Determination of what is a ministerial action varies by Local Agency. 998
PROCEDURAL POLICIES CHAPTER 2
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 2-15 ▪ A tentative parcel, large lot, or subdivision map;
▪ A vesting tentative parcel or subdivision map;
▪ A development agreement; or
▪ A recorded final subdivision map.
(b) Expiration of Local Agency Commitment: If a Local Agency’s commitment to a development proposal, as set forth in Paragraph (a) of this policy, expires, the proposal will no longer qualify as an Existing Land Use. As such, the proposal shall be subject to the policies of this ALUCP.
(1) Filing of a new or revised version of any of the approval documents listed in Paragraph (a) of this policy means that the use no longer qualifies as an Existing Land Use and, therefore, is subject to ALUC review in accordance with the policies of Sections 2.4 and 2.5.
(2) However, if the Local Agency extends the commitment prior to its expiration and without making substantive changes to the commitment, then the status of the proposal as an Existing Land Use shall remain in effect. Refer to Policy

2.10.6 for a list of Actions that qualify as substantive changes. (c) Existing Nonconforming Uses: Pre-existing lots or structures that were legally created or built but would now be prohibited or restricted under this ALUCP are called “legal nonconforming uses.” The ALUC has no ability to reduce or remove Nonconforming or otherwise incompatible Existing Land Uses from the Airport environs. Further, this ALUCP is not intended to compel Local Agency action to reduce or remove nonconforming or otherwise incompatible Existing Land Uses from the Airport environs.
(1) Proposed changes to uses within existing structures are not subject to ALUC review unless the changes would require a use permit or other form of approval from the Local Agency and result in an increased nonconformity with the compatibility criteria (see Policy 3.7.3). Refer to Policy 2.10.6 for a list of Actions that qualify as substantive changes.
(2) Proposed Redevelopment (see definition in Policy 2.1.36) is, however, subject to ALUC review and conformance with the same compatibility criteria as new development.
(d) Determination: The ALUC shall make the determination as to whether a specific Project meets the qualifying criteria set forth in Paragraph (a) of this policy. Once the ALUC finds that a Local Agency’s general plan is consistent with the ALUCP, this determination shall be made by the Local Agency.

2.7.4 Development by Right: This ALUCP acknowledges that certain types of development are allowed by right under state law and, therefore, are not subject to this ALUCP under the following conditions:
(a) Except within Compatibility Zone A, the following uses are permitted by right:
(1) Construction of a single-family home on a legal lot of record as of the effective date of this ALUCP if the use is permitted by local land use regulations.
999
CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURAL POLICIES
2-16 Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) (2) Construction of no more than two residential units on a parcel within a singlefamily residential zone as defined by state law and local regulations. 44 (3) Construction of a single accessory dwelling unit on a legal lot of record in an area zoned for single-family residential, multifamily, or mixed-use as defined by state law and local regulations. 45
(4) Construction of a single junior accessory dwelling unit on a legal lot of record in an area zoned for single-family residential as defined by state law and local regulations. 46
(5) Construction or establishment of a family day care home serving 14 or fewer children either in an existing dwelling or in a new dwelling permitted by the policies of this ALUCP.
47 (6) One caretaker unit is allowed on a property where the principal use is nonresidential (e.g., a mini-storage facility).
(b) Except in Compatibility Zones A through C, construction or establishment of an ancillary day care center serving no more than 14 children and associated with a business wherein a parent and/or legal guardian of every child present at the daycare is an employee of the primary use or the ancillary daycare center. The total number of people on site must comply with the associated intensity criteria. 48 (c) Except within Compatibility Zones A and B for Angwin Airport – Parrett Field and Compatibility Zones A, B1, B2, and B3 for Napa County Airport, farmworker housing is permitted where allowed by state law and local regulations. 49 (d) Except within Compatibility Zones A, B, C, and D1 for Angwin Airport – Parrett Field and Compatibility Zones A, B1, B2, B3, and C, for Napa County Airport, affordable housing developments, including workforce housing as indicated in 44 Government Code, Section 65852.21. This law implements Senate Bill (SB9) and allows for the creation of up to two residential units on a parcel within a single-family residential zone as a ministerial action, if the proposed housing development meets certain qualifications (e.g., located within a city or urban area). A Local Agency may not preclude the development of up to two units on a residentially zoned parcel or physically limit either of the two units to a size of less than 800 square feet. 45 Government Code, Section 66333. The law allows for the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in areas zoned for single-family residential, multifamily residential, or mixed-use. The law allows a Local Agency to impose conditions, such as a maximum square footage, on attached or detached ADUs. In accordance with the provisions of Section 65852.21, a Local Agency is not obligated to allow an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit on parcels where the property owner is using the provisions of that Section. 46 Government Code, Section 66314. The law defines a junior accessory dwelling unit as a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence, including an attached garage. In accordance with the provisions of Section 65852.21, a Local Agency is not obligated to allow an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit on parcels where the property owner is using the provisions of that Section.
47 Health and Safety Code, Sections 1597.42, 1597.43, and 1597.465 (definitions). The law states that family day care homes operated under the standards of state law constitute accessory uses of residentially zoned and occupied properties and do not fundamentally alter the nature of the underlying residential uses.
48 Napa County Code of Ordinances, Section 18.08.040, “Airport Compatibility Combination District. Ancillary day care centers associated with a business wherein a parent and/or legal guardian of every child present at the daycare is an employee of the primary use or the ancillary daycare center and the daycare does not exceed fifteen children.” 49 Government Code, Section 65589.5.
1000
PROCEDURAL POLICIES CHAPTER 2
Napa Countywide Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted December 04, 2024) 2-17 Paragraph (e) below, in commercial zones or mixed-income housing developments along commercial corridors as defined by state law and local regulations. 50 (e) Except in Compatibility Zones A through C, construction or establishment of ancillary workforce housing associated with a primary nonresidential use (e.g., Industrial) wherein at least one adult in each residence is an employee of an onsite business associated with the primary use. The total number of occupants in residential uses at who are not working at a given time must be considered in the intensity calculations for the site.
(f) Lot line adjustments, provided that new developable parcels would not be created and the resulting Density or Intensity of the affected property would not exceed the applicable Density or Intensity limits indicated in the Basic Compatibility Criteria tables for each Airport.
51 2.8 GENERAL ALUC REVIEW PROCESS

2.8.1 Timing of Referral: The precise timing of the ALUC’s or ALUC Executive Officer’s review of a proposed Land Use Planning Action, Major Land Use Action, or Airport Action may vary depending upon the nature of the specific Project.
(a) Referrals to the ALUC should be made at the earliest reasonable point in time so that the ALUC’s review can be duly considered by the Local Agency prior to when the agency formalizes its Actions. Depending upon the type of Action and the normal scheduling of meetings, ALUC review can be completed before, after, or concurrently with review by the local planning commission and other advisory bodies but must be accomplished before final action by the Local Agency. (b) Completion of a formal application with the Local Agency is not required prior to a Local Agency’s referral of a proposed Land Use Action or Airport Action to the ALUC.