Agenda packet — American Canyon City Council, June 2, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MARCH 28, 2017

WORKSHOP

SUBJECT
Update on Strategy to “Improving Traffic Flow on the Highway.”

SUBMITTED BY
Jason B. Holley, P.E. Public Works Director
Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director
Dana Shigley, City Manager

BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
After considerable community outreach in 2013, the City Council adopted a community Vision Statement. Soon after, the City Council also adopted its first Strategic Plan consisting of seven strategic focus areas, numerous strategies and their respective goals in support of the new Vision Statement. As time passed, the City accomplished many of the stated initiatives and the Strategic Plan was updated by the Council in Spring 2016.

The updated Strategic Plan includes a Focus Area for “ Transportation”. Specifically, it strives to:

Improve the City's transportation network to mitigate traffic and enhance the quality of life for the community”.

A key Strategy in support of the Transportation Focus Area is: “ Improving Traffic Flow on the Highway”.

The workshop tonight is an opportunity for the community to receive an update on the City’s progress on implementing this Strategy. Specifically, the following Strategic Plan Goals in support of it:

Goal TR-3: “Construct improvements to Highway 29 at Napa Junction.” Goal TR-4: “Ensure signal timing along Highway 29 is maximized using the most advanced technology available.”
Goal TR-2: “Construct improvements to Theresa/ Eucalyptus.” Goal ED- 5: “Construct final leg of Devlin Road.”
Goal TR-5: “Seek to obtain funding and construct Newell extension to Highway 29.” Goal TR-1: “Seek and obtain funding for highway widening consistent with the Highway 29 corridor study and Broadway District Specific Plan”.

The first three Goals (TR-2, 3, and 4) pertain to smaller, discrete highway intersection projects. The next three goals ( ED-1, TR-5, and TR-1) pertain to the implementation of more costly, long-term regional initiatives.

HIGHWAY INTERSECTION PROJECTS
Goal TR-3: “Construct improvements to Highway 29 at Napa Junction.” - The “ SR29/ Napa Junction Road Intersection Improvements Project – Phase 2 (TR17-0200)” is part of the FY2016-17 Capital Budget.

Design of the project is complete and the City has obtained an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans. This Project is scheduled to go out to bid in April. Construction should be complete by the end of 2017. The Project will add two additional westbound turn lanes and widen the radius of the corners. The new 1Page 3 of 17 Item Number: 604 A.
2 turn-lanes will increase capacity of the westbound approach, thereby reducing the amount of green time needed to serve the anticipated traffic volumes. The green time will be shifted to the north -south phase, thereby increasing through capacity and decreasing congestion. The corners will be widened to reduce potential conflicts between large trucks turning off the highway and vehicles waiting on the side street. The improvements are required as part of the Napa Junction III development and staff anticipates bringing an item to Council in April related to this project.

Goal TR-4: “ Ensure signal timing along Highway 29 is maximized using the most advanced technology available.” – Phase 1 of this project was completed in 2015. It implemented a coordinated signal timing plan in order to maximize consistent green times on the mainline. Currently the signal controllers use GPS clocks to "synchronize their watches" and then implement a sequenced timing plan from the same starting point each day. Unfortunately, this method is not always reliable and it difficult to know if the sequencing is performing as intended.

The next phase, " The “ SR29 Signal Interconnect Project ( TR15-0300)” is part of the FY2016-17 Capital Budget. This project physically connects each signal controller together in a series with wires and then designates one as the master controller. The master controller will ensure that all other controllers are operating the desired signal timing plan. In addition, detection cameras placed at each intersection will count objects as they pass-through. This video will provide a continuous counting of vehicles and feedback such a stopping time, etc. Staff is also exploring the addition of adaptive controller technology such as Rhythm Engineering' s™ " InSync" platform). This technology uses the data provided by the video to make adaptive changes in signal sequencing and timing in response to changing traffic conditions. This technology has demonstrated a measurable reduction in traffic congestion on highlytravelled roadways such as the highway.

The design of this next phase is complete and staff plans to submit an application for an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans shortly. This Project is scheduled to go out to bid in summer 2017. Construction should be complete by the end of 2017.

Next Step: No Council action is needed on these two projects at this time. Both are in process and staff will return to the City Council as needed.

Goal TR-2: “ Construct improvements to Theresa/ Eucalyptus.” - Design of the “ Eucalyptus Dr.

Realignment Project (TR13-0400)” is on hold pending conclusion on the Watson Ranch Specific Plan. In spring 2016, the California Transportation Commission unilaterally postponed state funding for this project until FY 2021-22.

Other projects not currently in the Strategic Plan
Other efforts either completed or planned include:

Improving the Westbound Donaldson Way intersection at Highway 29. This effort, completed a couple years ago, significantly improved wait times and traffic flow from Vintage Ranch to the highway.

The Commerce Blvd. connection to Eucalyptus Drive will be completed as part of the Clarke Ranch and Napa Junction School projects. This will provide a second access point into the Green Island area.
1Page 4 of 17 Item Number: 605 A.
3 The completion of class one bike trails continues to be a priority. The Kimberly Bay trail connection is currently in design and may be ready for funding by the end of the year. We recently completed one key link in the Vine Trail (Silver Oak) and another link will be completed with Devlin and Green Island Roads.

The Bay Trail extension north continues to be elusive, with challenges from the Napa County Airport and State Fish and Wildlife.

NORTH/ SOUTH CONNECTIONS
Since before the City’ s incorporation, all residents of Napa County have struggled with a lack of transportation alternatives to SR29. The result has been an ever-increasing level of traffic congestion as development in Napa County and the North Bay has increased. There are numerous reasons for the increased congestion, not the least of which is a County-wide housing-jobs imbalance. Simply put, most non-governmental jobs in Napa County are in the hospitality and agricultural industry. Many of these jobs are seasonal and pay modestly. This stands in stark contrast to the price of housing which is very high, primarily due to a lack of supply. In short, most residents of Napa County love living here, but relatively few are lucky enough to also work near where they live. And those that work in Napa County are more likely than not to live elsewhere ( the NVTA Travel Behavior Study estimates there are 90,000 trips per day in Napa County that originate or conclude outside Napa County ). The City Council has, for many years, advocated that any significant improvement to traffic congestion on Highway 29 through American Canyon will require a full range of improvements and policy changes, including investment in workforce housing in Napa County and improved transit and non-motorized options (of particular note, the Vine Trail and Bay Trail connections) in addition to improved highway and road connectivity.

In many respects, the lack of alternatives to SR29 mirrors the City’s own water supply situation. In this case, the City relies almost solely on the State Water Project – which has a less than desirable reliability and over which the City has no control. Likewise, due to lack of funding and too many priorities, Caltrans provides a less than desirable level of service for operations and aesthetics on the highway.

The City has limited ability to manage the highway, but similarly must work within Caltrans regulations and highly constrained funding to guide its future. And more importantly, neither the Legislature nor the California Transportation Commission has prioritized capital projects to increase capacity on SR29 and it seems unlikely they will do so anytime in the near future.

Nevertheless, SR29 is the central artery serving the life-blood of the North Bay economic engine. It is the primary connection between Napa County and southern Solano County, the East Bay and South Bay, and Central San Joaquin Valley. The current traffic congestion constrains economic development for all of Napa County. To exert leadership on the future of SR29, the Council is wisely investing in an initiative to increase capacity of highway by adding an additional travel lane in each direction. Much like the Alternative Intake Project ( AIP) will set the stage for increased reliability and capacity for future City water customers, the " 6-Lane Broadway Boulevard" will also increase roadway capacity by increasing the number of vehicle travel lanes from 4 to 6. Importantly, this increased capacity will benefit all Napa residents and improve economic growth in the region.

The analogy between water supplies and transportation systems goes much deeper than just the highway. Beyond just the AIP (i.e. highway), the Council has also begun to invest significant resources to diversify its water portfolio altogether. First, it has chosen to advance regionally significant recycled water projects as part of its award-winning Zero Water Footprint Policy. Secondly, the Council has 1Page 5 of 17 Item Number: 606 A.
4 chosen to invest in a share of a new state-wide surface water storage system (Sites Reservoir). Much in the same way it is diversifying its water portfolio, the Council has also begun to help diversify the region' s north-south transportation systems. This is primarily through the addition of two new roadway connections ( 1) Devlin Road ( on the west side of SR29) and (2) Newell Drive ( on the east side of SR29).

Here too, the City is part of a broader coalition of public and private interests striving to accomplish these shared goals.

Each of these three routes is
critical for improved
circulation in and around
south Napa County. The
Devlin Road connection can
carry approximately 5,000-
10,000 cars and trucks per
day and will serve local
commuters and internal
traffic to the airport/ Green
Island Road industrial areas,
removing these trucks from
the highway. The extension
of Newell Drive, serving an
additional 5,000-10,000 cars
per day, will be driven by
American Canyon residents,
but will primarily serve daily
commuters traveling from
cities to the south into Napa
for their employment.

Finally, Highway 29 will
continue to serve as the
primary commuter, visitor
and resident artery from
Solano County to Napa and
points north. The highway,
currently carrying up to
50,000 cars per day, also
serves as American Canyon’ s
front door” to the region
and is one of our potential
economic engines.

This report explores in detail
the opportunities and
challenges facing Highway 29
improvements, as well as the
two Highway alternatives:

Newell Drive and Devlin
Road. Figure 1 shows these three connections.

Figure 1. North/ South
Connectivity
1Page 6 of 17 Item Number: 607 A.
5 HIGHWAY WIDENING
Goal TR-1: “ Seek and obtain funding for highway widening consistent with the Highway 29 corridor study and Broadway District Specific Plan”. - Implementation of the Broadway District Specific Plan, including highway widening to 6 lanes, will require local, regional, state and other funding. It is helpful to break the project down into subcomponents by potential funding source. For example, certain outside funding sources often can only be used for non-motorized improvements, while others may only be used to improve transit improvements. Local monies typically can be used on a wider range of improvements. In this regard, the City is at the forefront of local revenue generation through the Council' s 2014 adoption of a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) that for the first time in Napa County provides for the collection of fees from developers to cover their proportionate share of costs to widen the highway.

It is noteworthy that Napa County is now currently updating its Circulation Element and also considering the potential for a county- wide traffic impact fee.) Thus, much like solving a jig-saw puzzle, the funding strategy is to acquire various sources - each paying only for the improvements allowed - and then to combine them to build a complete project that accommodates all users on highway.

The 6-lane " Urban Arterial" proposed in the Broadway District Specific Plan will provide for pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes of travel that currently don't exist on the highway. It will also include the most advanced signal timing technology and avant-garde form-based zoning codes that will incentivize a new residential mixed- use development along the corridor. Figure 2 below depicts how the 6 - Lane Urban Arterial might look once completed and Table 1 below compares the features of this concept against the existing conditions.

Figure 2 - Proposed 6-Lane Urban Arterial
1Page 7 of 17 Item Number: 608 A.
6 Table 1 – Contrast between existing 4-Lane Rural Highway and proposed 6-Lane Urban Arterial Existing Planned
Road Classification 4-Lane Rural Highway 6-Lane Urban Arterial Posted Speed 55 mph 35 mph
Number of Lanes6 2 3
Lane Width 12-feet 11-feet
Non-Peak Travel Time 77 seconds 122 seconds
Pedestrian Facilities No Yes
Bicycle Facilities No Yes
Transit Facilities No Yes
On-Street Parking No Yes
Landscaping No Yes
Underground Utilities No Yes
Coordinated Signals Yes Yes
PDA Development No Yes
It is important to note the planned 6-lane Urban Arterial is the cornerstone of the implementation of the Broadway District Specific Plan. The planned widening is consistent with all current City and County General Plans, as well as the Napa Valley Transportation Authority' s (NVTA) Highway 29 Corridor Study - all which solicited significant public input and resulted in community consensus.

Moreover, the Plan embodies a sustainable community strategy as dictated by SB375 ( Steinberg) and seeks to locate housing near employment centers served by non-motorized transportation options. As a key component to the " Bay Area Sustainable Community Strategy", the Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG) in association with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD) initiated a program for local agencies to establish Priority Development Areas ( PDAs) that provide higher density housing in close proximity to employment and transit. In 2010, the ABAG approved the City designation of approximately 225 acres adjacent to Highway 29 as a Mixed Use Corridor Priority Development Area (PDA). The PDA - including the widening the highway - is now the focus of the Broadway District Specific Plan. In short, the term highway widening” is not limited to just new vehicle travel lanes, but rather it represents the allencompassing prospect of accommodating all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and vehicles).

Funding Strategy
The estimated cost to implement planned highway improvements within the PDA is approximately 25M ( from American Canyon Road to Napa Junction Road). The funding strategy is to leverage restricted funds to build as much infrastructure as possible ( within allowable uses) and augment it with unrestricted funds and private capital. For example, NVTA is in the process of soliciting MTC's consideration to include certain (non-motorized) elements of the highway widening for funding from the potentially new Regional Measure 3 (RM3). Other funding sources such as OBAG3 would be eligible for these non-motorized elements too. Likewise both FTA and TDA-4 funding is available for transit improvements. Thus, elements such as the curb/ gutter, landscaping, utility undergrounding, Class I Bikeway, and enhanced pedestrian crossings all have identified potential funding sources. Combined, these items represent approximately 40% (or $10.0M) of the overall cost of the planned improvements.

Funding sources for a new vehicle travel lane are much more limited - the most likely choice is local Traffic Impact Fee. Thus, elements such earthwork, asphalt paving and striping also have identified 1Page 8 of 17 Item Number: 609 A.
7 potential funding sources. Combined, these items represent about 60% (or $15M) of the overall cost of the planned improvements. Our current TIF program can fund most of the needed resources for this component of the project. Frontage improvement along private property such as pathways, landscaping and gathering areas will all be funded through private capital once properties redevelop. Thus, through the strategic integration of the anticipated future restricted funds and accumulated local impact fees, implementation of the planned improvements is a reasonably foreseeable outcome.

Lastly, It’s worth noting recent survey work indicates relatively little new right-of-way is needed to widen the highway in between intersections. This will be further verified once the horizontal layout begins in conjunction with development of the Specific Plan Line.

Figure 3 - Funding Strategy for Highway Widening
Residential Mixed-Use
Development
Private Funding)
1) New NonMotorized Pathway
Restricted Funding)
40% of costs = $10m
1) New Vehicle
Lane (Unrestricted
Funding)
60% of costs =
15m
2) Existing
Vehicle Lanes, Shoulder,
and Median
Note: Only half of the highway cross-section is show for clarity.

Despite recent concerns expressed by NVTA staff, City staff does not believe a change in direction is warranted. Given our funding strategy, level of community support for the project, considerable need for additional capacity, and desire for economic growth, we recommend the City proceed with the Broadway District Specific Plan already underway. Planning for the pedestrian/ non-motorized improvements, landscaping and land use as benefits of the project without adding the additional lanes is not feasible nor consistent with considerable community feedback received on the plan.

Next Steps:

Identify existing Caltrans right-of-way (Complete).

Circulate Broadway District Specific Plan and Draft EIR for comment ( fall 2017).

Solicit Feedback/ Approval on Plan/ DIER from Caltrans (summer - fall 2017).

Council Approve Plan/ Final EIR ( spring 2018).

Bay Area voters approve Regional Measure 3 (fall 2018)
Develop Specific Plan Line and Master Project Sequencing (fall 2017 - spring 2019). 1Page 9 of 17 Item Number: 610 A.
8 HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVE – DEVLIN ROAD
Goal ED-5: “Construct final leg of Devlin Road.” – It is a noteworthy accomplishment that only two of the seven segments that make up Devlin Road remain unfinished today. Once complete, Devlin Road will provide a parallel alternative route on the west side of SR29 ( from Soscol Ferry Road to Green Island Road.) Over the last two decades, Napa County completed five segments ( Segments A, B, C, D, and F) and they will construct a sixth segment (Segment E) in 2018.

Design of the final segment is underway in conjunction with the City’ s “ Devlin Road Segment H Project TR 14-0100), “ shown below in Figure 4. Design of Segment H is part of the City's FY2016-17 Capital Budget and is 40% complete. Environmental review and permitting is underway and staff continues to negotiate property acquisition needed for the road. Segment H is scheduled to go out to bid in late fall 2017 after regulatory permits are obtained. Construction is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2018.

Next Step: No further Council action is needed at this time. Project is on-going and staff will return to the City Council as needed.

Figure 4. Devlin Road Segment H
1Page 10 of 17 Item Number: 611 A.
9 HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVE – NEWELL DRIVE
Goal TR-5: “Seek to obtain funding and construct Newell extension to Highway 29.” – Eventually Newell Drive will provide a parallel alternative route on the east side of SR29. The road is comprised of three segments – two of which are located in the City and one is located in the unincorporated County. While the most southerly segment (from American Canyon Road to Donaldson Way East) was completed with the Vintage Ranch development and the middle segment will be completed over the next decade in conjunction with the Watson Ranch development, completion of the northern segment ( partially located in the County) remains less certain.

Alignment Choices
There also remains uncertainty about potential roadway alignment. Table 2 identifies characteristics of 3 potential alignments.
1Page 11 of 17 Item Number: 612 A.
10 Option # 1 Paoli Loop Road # 2 Paoli Loop Road / Green Island Road # 3 South Kelly Road Option #1 is currently contemplated in both the County
and City’s General Plan Circulation Element. Without
intersection improvements, the signalized at-grade
intersection at SR29 may create significant backups on the highway southbound during afternoon peak hours as
motorists trying to make their way to southbound Newell Drive via existing Paoli Loop Rd.

Option #2 replaces the current at-grade intersection with an interchange that provides direct access to Newell Drive and Green Island Road. This option would be the most costly and would impact properties on the west side of the highway.

Option #3 would route Newell Drive north to a new
roundabout intersection at South Kelly Rd. Although it
would cost less than Option #2, this option would require the largest amount of agricultural property acquisition and could have the largest long-term O&M cost. This route
would travel through land currently owned by the Hess
family and operated as a vineyard.

Table 2. Alignment Options for Northern Segment of Newell Drive 613
11 Option # 1 Paoli Loop Road # 2 Paoli Loop Road / Green Island Road # 3 South Kelly Road # 3 Sout Length 4,100 feet 4,100 feet 7,400 feet
Structures ( 1) Railroad overcrossing 1) Railroad overcrossing 1) Highway Interchange
1) Railroad overcrossing
1) Creek bridge
Highway
Intersection
NB: Right-in, Right-out Only
SB: Via Paoli Loop
Traffic study is needed to determine the best way to
accommodate anticipated north and southbound traffic at the highway intersection. Options range from a signalized intersection to a grade-separated "Single Point Urban
Interchange"
Realignment of South Kelly Road and Roundabout
ROW East of SR29 Partial acquisition from six agricultural properties. Partial acquisition from six agricultural properties. Partial acquisition from six agricultural properties.

ROW West of
SR29
None Full acquisition of up to four industrial properties on west side of SR29
None
Estimated Cost $ 30M $ 40 - $75M $ 50M
Caltrans Approval
Required?
Yes Yes No
614
12 Funding Challenges Options #1 and #2
Because the Newell Drive extension will be a city/ county owned and maintained road, we do not anticipate any state or federal funding will be available for construction, including the interchange.

Funding must be provided by some combination of existing city/ county funds and fees/ exactions from future developers. As noted, the southern segment of Newell Drive was completed by the developer of the Vintage Ranch Development and the City is working with the developer of the Watson Ranch project to construct the Newell Drive extension along the boundaries of the Watson Ranch project. This leaves the segment roughly from Watson Lane to Paoli Loop/ Green Island Road and the appropriate highway connection ( for Options # 1 and #2) with no immediately identified funding source.

The proposed alignment for Options # 1 and #2 will impact six parcels currently zoned for agricultural uses and not in the City limits. These property owners would be able to provide the required Right of Way and construct their share of the road extension IF they have the necessary zoning and other resources to develop their property and generate revenues. This will likely require the City to annex the area south of Watson Lane into the City limits and zone the property for commercial, industrial, or other appropriate uses. With this complete, the property owners could be required to fund their share of the road extension as they develop their parcels.

Possible Next Step: Begin the process of annexing the area south of Watson Lane. Meet with LAFCo. Meet with residents in the area. Determine appropriate zoning.

Another option would be for the City to use its TIF program. The current TIF program does not include any funding for the Newell Drive extension project. The Council could consider increasing the TIF to include all or a portion of the Newell Drive extension. This could potentially double the current TIF amount, from $577 per trip to $900 - $ 1,500 per trip. The TIF is paid by developers building projects anywhere in the City ( not just along Newell Drive) and this may have a dampening effect on development along the highway corridor, as our TIF fees will be quite high1.

Possible Next Step: Return to the Council with information about including Newell Drive extension in the TIF.

Finally, we could request the County participate in construction of this last segment, as it will be partially in their jurisdiction and, most importantly, will serve primarily commuters and tourists from Solano County and other areas headed north to Napa and beyond.

Possible Next Step: Meet with County staff to determine the County’ s interest in participating in this project. (Note: meeting is already scheduled for March 30.) Additional Land Use and Funding Challenges with Option #3 Option # 3, extending Newell Drive to South Kelly Road, would require the new road to travel through land currently owned by the Hess family and operated as a vineyard.

In 2008, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) with the County Board of Supervisors regarding the City’ s ultimate Year 2030 boundary and water allocation policies outside the City limits but within the Napa County Airport Business Park. The MOU required American Canyon residents to approve an urban limit line through an initiative process. Around the same time, the County adopted a new General Plan that placed the Hess Vineyard outside the proposed urban limit line 1 This does not include any increase in the TIF for the $20M Rio Del Mar undercrossing of the railroad as identified in the Watson ranch Specific Plan. Adding this to the TIF would increase the per trip fee by an additional $ 400. 1Page 14 of 17 Item Number: 615 A.
13 and noted that the property may be considered for industrial use if Newell Drive is extended through this property to South Kelly Road.

The urban limit line initiative easily qualified for election and was adopted by the City Council. At that time, residents were concerned that industrial development of the Hess Vineyard in the County was not in their interests, so the initiative redirected the future Newell Drive alignment from connecting at South Kelly Road to Green Island Road at SR29. This avoided the possibility that City efforts to extend Newell Drive would result in the Hess Vineyard converting to any zoning other than agricultural.

Table 3. Impacts of Land Use Choices for Hess Vineyard Parcels Policy Issue
Hess Vineyard Options
Remains Ag Use
in County
Converts to
Industrial Use in
County
Converts to Industrial Use
and is annexed to the City
Alternative Use and is
annexed to the City
City Urban Limit
Line (ULL)
No Change No Change Requires change to MOU
with County and an
approved voter initiative
to amend the ULL
Requires change to MOU
with County and an
approved voter initiative
to amend the ULL
City Sphere of
Influence (SOI)
No Change No Change City approves General
Plan Amendment,
Prezoning, and
environmental review.

LAFCO must approve the
SOI amendment.

City approves General Plan
Amendment, Prezoning,
and environmental review.

LAFCO must approve the
SOI amendment.

General Plans No Change
required for either
City or County
General Plan
County may need
to amend its Land
Use Plan and
change zoning
City would amend the
General Plan Land Use
Element to designate the
property for industrial
uses and amend the
Circulation Element to
realign Newell Drive to
South Kelly Road
City would amend the
General Plan Land Use
Element to designate the
property for industrial
uses and amend the
Circulation Element to
realign Newell Drive to
South Kelly Road
Annexation No Change No Change Requires ULL, SOI, General Plan, and pre-zoning tasks
plus LAFCO approval of
the annexation into City
Limits (which will include
the areas surrounding
Watson Lane as well).

Requires ULL, SOI, General
Plan, and pre-zoning tasks
plus LAFCO approval of the
annexation into City Limits
which will include the
areas surrounding Watson
Lane as well).

American Canyon
Potable Water
service
No Change No potable water
service unless
LAFCO approves it
with City’ s
consent
Would be located in City
limits with City water
service
Would be located in City
limits with City water
service
Possible Funding
sources for
extension of
Newell Drive
Possible County
Traffic Impact Fee
TIF)
County Traffic
Impact Fee (TIF),
Frontage
Improvements
and exactions on
future developers
City TIF, Possible County
Traffic Impact Fee (TIF),
Frontage Improvements
and exactions on future
developers
City TIF, Possible County
Traffic Impact Fee (TIF),
Frontage Improvements
and exactions on future
developers
1Page 15 of 17 Item Number: 616 A.
14 Today, there is renewed interest in exploring whether north-south traffic demand could be accommodated more efficiently if Newell Drive connected to South Kelly Road. Since the County’ s general plan says that this alignment may allow the Hess Vineyard to be converted to industrial uses, it raises numerous policy issues, such as whether converting the Hess Vineyard to industrial use is a good idea and if so, whether it should occur in the City or the County and whether industrial is the highest and best use for this property. Table 3, on the previous page, identifies the policy implications of leaving the Hess Vineyard in the County as agricultural; allowing it to be converted industrial in the County; allowing it to be converted to industrial inside the City; and an Alternative use developed in the City.

As noted previously, the property owner can be required to construct segments of Newell Drive improvements and/ or pay fees for the project, but this is only effective if they develop their property and generate revenues. Their ability to do this will depend on economic conditions, property owner investment plan, third party property owner cooperation, zoning ( ag vs. industrial), availability of potable water, and the jurisdiction (City vs. County).

In order to maximize opportunity for the Hess family to sell or develop their land and pay for some or all of the road extension, numerous policy changes will be required from the City, County and voters.

Without these changes, it is unlikely that the property owners will be able to fund road development and all costs for construction will be borne by other City and County resources (TIF, etc.).

The Hess Vineyard does not extend all the way to South Kelly Road, so the Newell Drive extension requires coordination with another landowner whose property would remain the County regardless of whether the Hess Vineyard is annexed into the City.

Possible Next Steps:

Preliminary discussions with all property owners impacted by the Newell Drive extension The City negotiates a new Urban Limit Line MOU with the County American Canyon Citizens adopt an Urban Limit Line amendment initiative The City amends the General Plan to reflect the new alignment to South Kelly Road The County amends their General Plan to reflect the new alignment to South Kelly Road The City Prezones the Property
LAFCO approves a sphere of influence amendment and annexation With zoning in place, the property owner and City can determine final road design.

It is not possible at this time to predict whether any of these steps would be successful. In addition, should it all be successful, there is no certainty that market demand would favor developing the property at that time or that a future property owner wouldn’t keep the land vacant as a long term investment.

Likewise, assuming the property could be developed in the County as industrial has an uncertain outcome because LAFCO would have to approve City water service. It is not certain whether the City would agree to provide water service or that LAFCO laws would allow City water service when the water demand is not related to a public health emergency.

Possible Next Step: Meet with County staff to determine the County’s interest in extending Newell Drive to South Kelly Road. (Note: meeting is already scheduled for March 30.) 1Page 16 of 17 Item Number: 617 A.
15 NEXT STEPS
Solving long-term traffic circulation challenges takes money, time, and regional cooperation. Mostly, though, solving these challenges requires planning, creativity and perseverance. The many segments of Devlin Road took a decade to complete and cooperation from several regional partners. The Highway 29 improvement project and Newell Drive extension are not any different. We need to be committed to our plans and continue making forward progress, just as we have for the last five years.

Throughout this report we have offered the Council some suggestions about possible next steps. The Council is welcome to use these, or offer other direction. Staff has direction and is already proceeding with projects related to Highway 29. Thus, of particular interest to staff is the Council’ s interests the alignment of Newell Drive extension.
1Page 17 of 17 Item Number: 618 A.

CITYCOUNCILAGENDA

STAFFREPORT
February3,2015
BusinessItem:

SUBJECT
AdoptanOrdinancerevisingChapter15. 12oftheAmericanCanyonMunicipalCode( TrafficImpact MitigationFees)toprovideforfutureincreasesoftrafficimpactfeestobeadoptedannuallyby resolutionoftheCityCouncilandadoptaResolutionapprovingaFinalTrafficImpactFeeNexusStudy datedFebruary3,2015).

SUBMITTEDBY
JasonHolley,P.E.,PublicWorksDirector

BACKGROUNDANDISSUES
OnJanuary20,2015theCouncilconductedapublichearingregardingchangestothe Traffic ImpactMitigationFee(ord/&program.Afterconsideringcommentsfrompublic, theCouncil approvedthevariousordinancesandresolutionsasrecommendedbystaff.

ThisitemtonightcontainstwoactionsforconsiderationbytheCouncil. Theyarebothproceduralin nature,butneverthelessrequiredtofinalizethe updatetotheTIF.

ThefirstactionisfortheCounciltoconductafinalreadingoftheOrdinance( Attachment1)previously approvedbytheCouncilonJanuary20. ItmakesvariouschangestoChapter15. 12oftheAmerican CanyonMunicipalCodeTrafficImpactMitigationFees( Attachments2& 3).Therearenoproposed changestotheordinancepreviouslyapprovedbytheCouncilandstaffrecommendsitfinaladoptionas is.

ThesecondactionisfortheCounciltoadoptaResolutionapprovingtheFinalTrafficImpactFeeNexus Study,datedFebruary3,2015(Attachment4).ThisFinalStudywillbetheofficialreferencedocumentthatis usedtoimplementtheTIFinaccordancewithACMC15. 12.Therearesmalldifferencesbetweentheversion oftheStudyapprovedbyCouncilonJanuary20andthisŽThefinalversionreflectscorrected typographicalerrorsandarithmeticdiscrepanciesfoundinthepreviousversion. However,thefindings relatedtotheproportionatecostofimprovementsneedtomitigatetheimpactsofnewdevelopmentand mostimportantly,theTIFamountitself($552pernetnewdailyvehicletrip) remainsunchanged.Staff recommendstheCounciladoptaResolutionapprovingtheFinalTrafficImpactFeeNexusStudy,( dated February3,2015).

COUNCILPRIORITYPROGRAMSANDPROJECTS
ReducingcongestiononSR29andimprovingcirculationCitywideisamongthehighestprioritiesforthe CityCouncilandthecommunity. FinalizingtheupdatetotheTIFisaprerequisitefortheCitytobeable toobtainsufficientresourcestocompletemanyofthekeyfuturetrafficmitigationprojects.

FISCALIMPACT
TherecommendedactionswillhavenodirectimpactontheGeneralFund. Whiletheactionswillhave noimmediateimpacttotheTrafficImpactFeeFund, theresultovertimewillbeincreasestothose fundsasfeesinconjunctionwithnewdevelopment.
619

ENVIRONMENTALDETERMINATION
Therecommendedactionsarenotdefinedas" projects"undertheCEQA.Therefore,theyarenot requiredtobesubjecttoanalysisfortheirimpactonthephysicalenvironment. Theactionsinvolveonly thecreationofgovernmentfundingmechanismsorothergovernmentfiscalactivitieswhichdonot involveanycommitmenttoanyspecificprojectwhichmayresultinapotentiallysignificantphysical impactontheenvironment. Itisforeseeablethattherecommendedactionswilleventuallyresultin fundingbecomingavailableforprojectsthatwillbesubjecttosuchanalysisattheearliestpossibletime thatsuchinformationisreasonablyavailableandtheCityistodosoinaninformedmanner.

STAFFRECOMMENDATION
StaffrecommendsthattheCityCouncil:
1)ConductafinalreadingofanOrdinanceadoptingrevisionstoChapter15. 12oftheAmerican CanyonMunicipalCode( TrafficImpactMitigationFees) toprovideforfutureincreasesoftraffic impactfeestobeadoptedannuallybyresolutionoftheCityCouncil 2)AdoptaResolutionapprovingtheFinalTrafficImpactFeeNexusStudy, datedFebruary3,2015.

ATTACHMENTS
1)OrdinanceadoptingrevisionstoChapter15. 12oftheAmericanCanyonMunicipalCode( Traffic ImpactMitigationFees)toprovideforfutureincreasesoftrafficimpactfeestobeadopted annuallybyresolutionoftheCityCouncil
2)ExistingAmericanCanyonMunicipalCodeChapter15. 12(redline) 3)NewAmericanCanyonMunicipalCodeChapter15. 12(cleancopy) 4)ResolutionapprovinganupdatedTrafficImpactFeeNexusStudyandincreasingtheTraffic MitigationImpactFee
620
ORDINANCE#2015-____

ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFAMERICAN
CANYONAMENDINGCHAPTER15.12OFTHEAMERICANCANYON

MUNICIPALCODE (TRAFFICIMPACTMITIGATIONFEES) TOPROVIDEFOR

FUTUREINCREASESOFTRAFFICIMPACTFEESTOBEADOPTED

ANNUALLYBYRESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCIL
WHEREAS, inresponsetoanticipateddevelopment, theCityadoptedits currentTrafficImpactFee (TIF) programin1999; and
WHEREAS, overthelast15years, muchoftheanticipateddevelopment occurredandmanyofthecapitalimprovementsrequiredtoaccommodatethe additionaltrafficgeneratedbythatdevelopmentarecomplete;and WHEREAS, anupdatetotheTIFprograminanticipationofthenext generationofdevelopmentisneeded; and
WHEREAS, anewTrafficImpactFeeNexusStudy, datedFebruary3, 2015, hasbeendevelopedtodeterminethecostofimprovementsneededto accommodatethetrafficgeneratedbyfuturedevelopmentandtheappropriate shareofthosecoststobebornebythenewdevelopmentwithintheCity; and WHEREAS, saidStudysatisfiestherequirementsofGovernmentCode Section66000etseq. (i.e. MitigationFeeAct); and
WHEREAS, saidStudyandtheTIFprogramhavebeenapprovedby
ResolutionoftheCityCouncil; and
WHEREAS, CityCouncil, maybyresolution, adoptannualincreasestothe trafficmitigationimpactfeestoaccountfortheincreasedduetoinflation; and WHEREAS, CityCouncil, fromtimetotimeandatitssolediscretion, may byresolution, adoptupdatedtrafficmitigationimpactfeesbasedonarevised TrafficImpactMitigationFeeNexusStudypursuanttotheMitigationFeeAct; and

NOW, THEREFORETHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFAMERICAN
CANYONDOESHEREBYORDAINASFOLLOWS:

SECTION1: Section15.12.030, SubsectionBisamendedtoread: “Traffic improvements” meanthoseroadwayandintersectionimprovementsidentifiedin theCirculationElementoftheGeneralPlan, thecurrentCityTrafficImpact MitigationFeeNexusStudy, andtheCityCapitalImprovementProgram”.

SECTION2: Section15.12.030, SubsectionCisamendedtoread: “”Traffic mitigationfee” or “trafficimpactfee” or “trafficdevelopmentimpactfee” means thatfeefortrafficmitigationidentifiedinthemostrecenttrafficimpactfeenexus study.”
621
SECTION3: Section15.12.030, SubsectionDisaddedtoreadasfollows:

TrafficImpactMitigationFeeNexusStudy” or “TrafficDevelopmentImpactFee Study” or “FeeStudy” themostrecentstudy, adoptedbyresolutionoftheCity CouncilpursuanttoGovernmentCode66000etseq. (MitigationFeeAct”), ofthe nexusbetweentrafficimpactmitigationfeesandtrafficimprovementsneededto servenewdevelopmentinAmericanCanyon”.

SECTION4: Section15.12.050, SubsectionAisamendedtoread: “A trafficimpactfeeisimposedonnewconstructionassetforthinthischapter. The feeshallbeinaccordancewiththemostrecentTrafficImpactMitigationFee NexusStudy.”
SECTION5: Section15.12.050, SubsectionCisadded: “TheCity, atits solediscretion, mayadoptrevisedtrafficmitigationimpactfeesbasedona revisedTrafficImpactMitigationFeeNexusStudyadoptedbyresolutionofthe CityCouncilpursuanttotheMitigationFeeAct.”
SECTION6: Section15.12.070, SubsectionAisamendedtoread: “The trafficimpactfeesetforthinthischaptermaybereducedbyacreditgivenfor constructionbyadeveloperofalloraportionofthetrafficimprovementidentified inthischaptersubjecttorecommendationbytheCityEngineerandapprovalby theCityCouncil.”
SECTION7: Section15.12.070, SubsectionBisrepealed.

SECTION8: Section15.12.090isamendedtoread: “Thealternative commercialrateprogramrecognizesthediversityofcommercialusesandthe potentialdifferencesintrafficgenerationratesandpeakhourcharacteristics. The CityCouncilmayconsiderthefindingsofanindependenttrafficstudy, prepared underthedirectionoftheCityEngineerandfundedbytheapplicant, justifyinga lessertrafficimpactfee.”
SECTION9: Section15.12.110isamendedtoread: “Thefeescollected pursuanttothischaptershallbeheldinseparateaccountsasdeemedappropriate bytheCityManagerandexpendedsolelyonthetrafficimprovementsidentifiedin thischapter.”
TheforegoingOrdinancewasintroducedandreadataregularmeetingoftheCity CounciloftheCityofAmericanCanyon, StateofCalifornia, heldonthe20thday ofJanuary, 2015, andwaspassedandadoptedataregularmeetingoftheCity CounciloftheCityofAmericanCanyon, StateofCalifornia, bythefollowingvote:
622
MAYORGARCIA: _______
VICEMAYORLEARY: _______
COUNCILMEMBERBENNETT: _______
COUNCILMEMBERRAMOS: _______
COUNCILMEMBERJOSEPH: _______
LeonGarcia, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVEDASTOFORM:

RebekahBarr, MMC, CityClerk WilliamD. Ross, CityAttorney 623
ATTACHMENT 2

AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 15.12 - TRAFFIC MITIGATION IMPACT FEES

15.12.010Purpose.

This chapter hasbeenenacted forthepurpose ofestablishing development impact feestodefray the actual costs ofconstructing traffic improvements tomitigate impacts resulting from proposed new development identified intheAmerican Canyon General Plan. (Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999)

15.12.020Findings.

A. TheAmerican Canyon General Plan Land UseElement identifies projected build-outfortheCity ofAmerican Canyon;
B. Each newlanddevelopment project intheCityofAmerican Canyon willgenerate additional traffic within thecitylimitsofAmerican Canyon, whichwillcumulatively cause adverse environmental effects ifimprovements fortraffic circulation arenotmade; C. TheAmerican Canyon General PlanCirculation Element identifies theroadway andintersection improvements necessary toaccommodate theanticipated levels ofdevelopment; D. Without atraffic mitigation fee, existing andfuture sources ofrevenue willbeinadequate tofund asubstantial portion oftheimprovements fortraffic circulation which arenecessary toavoid the unacceptable levelofcongestion andrelated adverse impacts created byexpected development within the CityofAmerican Canyon; and
E. Itistheintent ofthecitycouncil toadopt bytheordinance codified inthischapter afairand equitable method ofsecuring therevenues necessary tofundtheconstruction andimplementation of necessary traffic circulation improvements. ( Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999)

15.12.030Definitions.

Forthepurposes ofthischapter:

A. ofanewsingle-family residence, townhouse,
apartment, restaurant, motel orhotel, industrial use, retailuse, office use, orinstitutional use.

Circulation Element oftheGeneral Planand/or,andassetforth below:themostrecent Traffic Impact Mitigation FeeNexus Study and/orCityCapital Improvement Program.

No. Traffic Improvements

1. Flosden Rd. andAmerican Canyon Rd, traffic signal.

2. Flosden Rd. widen totwolanes American Canyon Rd. toVallejo citylimits.

3. Broadway (SR29) andAmerican Canyon Rd., traffic signal road improvements and bridgework.

4. Broadway (SR29) andEucalyptus, realignment andtraffic signal.

5. Broadway (SR29) andDonaldson Way, realignment, traffic signal andlandacquisition. 624
ATTACHMENT 2

AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 15.12 - TRAFFIC MITIGATION IMPACT FEES
No. Traffic Improvements

6. Newell Dr. extension, 2lanes fromAmerican Canyon Rd. toDonaldson Way.

7. Donaldson Way, 2lanes fromBroadway (SR29) toNewell Dr. (w/atgradeRRcrossing).

8. Newell Dr. extension, 2lanes from Donaldson Way toSouth Napa Junction Rd.

9. South Napa Junction Road, 2lanes fromBroadway toNewell Dr. (w/atgrade RRcrossing).

10.American Canyon Rd., add2lanes from Broadway (SR29) toSilver OakTrail.

11.Broadway (SR29) andAmerican Canyon Rd., intersection improvements.

12.Green Island Rd., add2lanes from Paoli Loop toCommerce Blvd.

13.Paoli Loop upgrade (widen shoulders, redesign SWloopradius).

14.Wetlands EdgeRd., Sunset Meadows portion (w/bridge butnotrail).

15.Wetlands Edge Rd., Waterton portion (w/otrail).

16.Eucalyptus Dr., improvements westofOceanview subdivision.

17.Eucalyptus Dr. improvements eastofOceanview subdivision.

18.Commerce Blvd. North Slough toEucalyptus (bridge andemergency access road).

19.Hanna extension, bridge crossing andrelated utilities.

20.Traffic enhancements.

21.Future traffic studies.

C.
feefortraffic mitigation forthevarious landusecategories identified inExhibit Boftheordinance codified inthischapter. (Ord. 2006-10 § 2, 20006; Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999)identified inthemostrecent traffic impact feenexus study.

D. Traffic Impact Mitigation FeeNexus Study orTraffic Development Impact FeeStudyor FeeStudythe mostrecent study,adopted byresolution oftheCityCouncil pursuant toGovernment Code 66000 etseq. (Mitigation FeeAct),ofthenexus between traffic impact mitigation feesandtraffic improvements needed toserve newdevelopment inAmerican Canyon.

15.12.040Exemptions.

Thefollowing projects areexempt formtheprovisions ofthischapter:

AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 15.12 - TRAFFIC MITIGATION IMPACT FEES
C. Temporary uses less thantwelve months induration;
D. Replacement development onaone-to-onebasis forresidential, industrial andcommercial construction;
E. Replacement ofcommercial unitsdestroyed byfireornatural disaster, provided thefloor areais notincreased. (Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999)

15.12.050Development impact fees.

A. Atraffic impact feeisimposed onnewconstruction assetforth inthischapter. Thefeeshallbein accordance withthecostperunit (e.g., dwelling unit, square feet, hotel/motel rooms, etc.) asidentified in Exhibit Banddefined inthischapter. mostrecent Traffic Impact Mitigation FeeNexus Study.

Traffic mitigation impact feesafterAugust 4, 2011shallbeapproved bycitycouncil resolution.

B. TheCityatitssolediscretion mayfrom timetotimeadopt revised traffic mitigation impact fees based ontheproportionate effects ofinflation orchanges tothecostofliving. Forpurposes ofcalculation, theEngineering News Record 20-CityConstruction CostIndex shallbeusedforadjusting saidfees. Said adjustments inaccordance withthissection maybeapproved byaresolution oftheCityCouncil. (Ord. 2011-05 § 1, 2011; Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999).

C. TheCityatitssolediscretion mayfrom timetotimeadopt revised traffic mitigation impact fees based onarevised Traffic Impact Mitigation FeeNexus Study adopted byresolution oftheCityCouncil pursuant toGovernment Code 66000 etseq. (Mitigation FeeAct).

15.12.060Collection offees.

Thedevelopment impact feessetforth inthischapter shall becollected from newconstruction priorto issuance ofabuilding permit, andforsubdivisions priortoapproval ofafinalmap, unless other provisions areadopted asapartofanapproved development agreement, ortheCityCouncil authorizes an alternative tothetiming ofsuchfeesbyresolution. (Ord. 2012-02 § 2, 2012; Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999)

15.12.070Inlieucontributions.

A. Thetraffic impact feesetforthinthischapter maybereduced byacredit given forconstruction byadeveloper ofalloraportion ofthetraffic improvement identified inthischapter subject to recommendation bytheCityEngineer andapproval bytheCityCouncil. improvements identified in Exhibit Atotheordinance codified inthischapter and/orotheron-siteand/oroff-sitetraffic improvements, subject totheapproval bythecitycouncil ineachcase.

B. Theamount ofthecredit fortraffic impact feesshall beapproved bythecitycouncil upon recommendation bytheCityEngineer. (Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999)

15.12.090Alternative commercial rateprogram.

Thealternative commercial rateprogram recognizes thediversity ofcommercial usesandthepotential differences intraffic generation ratesandpeak hour characteristics. TheCityCouncil mayconsider the findings ofanindependent traffic study, prepared under thedirection oftheCommunity Development 626
ATTACHMENT 2

AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 15.12 - TRAFFIC MITIGATION IMPACT FEES
DirectorCity Engineerand funded bytheapplicant, justifying alesser traffic impact fee. (Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999)

15.12.100Change ofuse.

Intheevent ofchange ofuseinadevelopment forwhich traffic impact feeswere paidinaccordance withthischapter, particularly those projects benefiting from eitherthespecial industrial incentive program orthealternative commercial rateprogram, theCityCouncil mayrequire thepayment ofthe difference between thetraffic impact feesoriginally paidandtheamount required bythischapter fornew use. TheCommunity Development Director andCityEngineer shall forward arecommendation tothe citycouncil ineachcase. (Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999)

15.12.110Disposition ofrevenues.

Thefeescollected pursuant tothischapter shallbeheldinseparate accounts asdeemed appropriate by thefinance directorCity Managerand expended solely onthetraffic improvements identified inthis chapter. (Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999)

15.12.120Refunds.

Where abuilding permit hasexpired withnonotable progress andnoextension hasbeengranted, a refund offeespaidmaybegiven, provided theclaim forrefund ismade within oneyearafterthe expiration date ofthebuilding permit. (Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999)

15.12.130Supplementary provisions.

Thefees required bythischapter shallbesupplementary tothefees, dedications orconditions imposed onadevelopment ofnewconstruction pursuant tocityapproval, orasisimposed byexisting stateorlocal law. (Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999)
627
ATTACHMENT 3

AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 15.12 - TRAFFIC MITIGATION IMPACT FEES

15.12.010Purpose.

15.12.020Findings.

15.12.030Definitions.

Forthepurposes ofthischapter:

A. ofanewsingle-family residence, townhouse,
apartment, restaurant, motel orhotel, industrial use, retailuse, office use, orinstitutional use.

Circulation Element oftheGeneral Planand/or, themostrecent Traffic Impact Mitigation FeeNexus Study and/orCityCapital Improvement Program.

C.
feefortraffic mitigation identified inthemostrecent traffic impact feenexus study.

D. Traffic Impact Mitigation FeeNexus Study orTraffic Development Impact FeeStudyor FeeStudythe mostrecent study, adopted byresolution oftheCityCouncil pursuant toGovernment Code 66000 etseq. (Mitigation FeeAct), ofthenexus between traffic impact mitigation feesandtraffic improvements needed toserve newdevelopment inAmerican Canyon.

15.12.040Exemptions.
628
ATTACHMENT 3

AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 15.12 - TRAFFIC MITIGATION IMPACT FEES
Thefollowing projects areexempt formtheprovisions ofthischapter:

A. Development forwhich avesting tentative map application hasbeen accepted ascomplete orhas been approved priortotheeffective date oftheamended ordinance codified inthischapter. Insuch cases, anagreed-upon feeaspartoftheconditions ofapproval forsaidapplication shallremain ineffect; B. Capital improvements/ buildings related totheoperation oftheCityofAmerican Canyon governmental operations;
C. Temporary uses less thantwelve months induration;
D. Replacement development onaone-to-onebasis forresidential, industrial andcommercial construction;
E. Replacement ofcommercial unitsdestroyed byfireornatural disaster, provided thefloor areais notincreased. (Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999)

15.12.050Development impact fees.

A. Atraffic impact feeisimposed onnewconstruction assetforth inthischapter. Thefeeshallbein accordance withthe mostrecent Traffic Impact Mitigation FeeNexus Study.

B. TheCityatitssolediscretion may from timetotimeadoptrevised traffic mitigation impact fees based ontheproportionate effects ofinflation orchanges tothecostofliving. Forpurposes ofcalculation, theEngineering News Record 20-CityConstruction CostIndex shallbeusedforadjusting saidfees. Said adjustments inaccordance withthissection maybeapproved byaresolution oftheCityCouncil. (Ord. 2011-05 § 1, 2011; Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999).

15.12.060Collection offees.

15.12.070Inlieucontributions.

15.12.090Alternative commercial rateprogram.

AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 15.12 - TRAFFIC MITIGATION IMPACT FEES
findings ofanindependent traffic study, prepared underthedirection oftheCityEngineer andfunded by theapplicant, justifying alesser traffic impact fee. (Ord. 99-18 § 1, 1999)

15.12.100Change ofuse.

15.12.110Disposition ofrevenues.

Thefeescollected pursuant tothischapter shallbeheldinseparate accounts asdeemed appropriate by theCityManager andexpended solely onthetraffic improvements identified inthischapter. (Ord. 99-18 1, 1999)

15.12.120Refunds.

15.12.130Supplementary provisions.

ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFAMERICANCANYON
APPROVINGTHEFINALTRAFFICIMPACTFEENEXUSSTUDY, DATEDFEBRUARY3, 2015 WHEREAS,inresponsetoanticipateddevelopment, theCityadopteditscurrentTrafficImpact Fee(TIF)programin1999;and
WHEREAS,overthelast15years,muchoftheanticipateddevelopmentoccurredandmanyof thecapitalimprovementsrequiredtoaccommodatetheadditionaltrafficgeneratedbythat developmentarecomplete; and
WHEREAS,anupdatetotheTIFprograminanticipationofthenextgenerationofdevelopment isneeded;and
WHEEREAS, theCityCouncilpreviouslyadoptedResolution# 201502approvingthatcertain TrafficImpactFeeNexusStudy( January20TIFStudy) datedJanuary20,2015;and WHEREAS,thatJanuary20TIFStudycontainedminorinternalinconsistencies, grammatical mistakesandarithmeticalerrors, andtheCityCouncildesirestosupersedeitwithamorerefined version;and
WHEREAS,aFinalTrafficImpactFeeNexusStudy( FinalTIFStudy) datedFebruary3,2015,has beendevelopedtomakeminorcorrectionstoaddressthe Žconcerns;and WHEREAS, thedifferencesbetweentheFinalTIFStudytheJanuary20TIFStudyareminorand ministerialinnature;and
WHEREAS, theFinalTIFStudydeterminesthecostofimprovementsneededtoaccommodate thetrafficgeneratedbyfuturedevelopmentandtheappropriateshareofthosecoststobebornebythe newdevelopmentwithintheCity; and
WHEREAS,theCityCouncilherebymakesthefollowingfindingsinconjunctionwithitsapproval oftheFinalTIFStudy:
1)ThepolicyoftheCityofAmericanCanyonisthatnewdevelopmentwillnotburden existingdevelopmentwiththecostofpublicfacilities, includingtrafficfacilities,required toaccommodategrowth. ThepurposeoftheTIFistoimplementthispolicybyproviding afundingsourcefromnewdevelopmentforcapitalimprovementstoservethat developmentThefeeadvancesalegitimateinterestoftheCitybyenablingtheCityto providemunicipalservicestonewdevelopment.
2)TheTIFwillfundexpandedfacilitiestoservenewdevelopment. Allplannedfacilitieswill belocatedwithintheCityofAmericanCanyon. Thesefacilitiesincludedinthefindings presentedhereincluderoadwaywidening, roadwayextension,intersectionsignalization andmodificatons,andotherroadwayimprovements. Plannedtrafficfacilitiesare identifiedinTrafficImpactFeeNexusStudy datedFebruary3,2015(ExhibitA).This Studyprovidesthesizeandcostestimateforeachplannedfacility. Moredetailed descriptionsofcertainplannedfacilities, includingtheirspecificlocation, ifknownatthis time,areincludedinvariousCityplanningdocumentsincludingtheGeneralPlan CirculationElement,the2014NCTPASR29CorridorImprovementPlan, andother 631
studies.TheCitymaychangethelistofplannedtrafficfacilitiestomeetchanging circumstancesandneeds, asitdeemsnecessary.TheTIFwillbeupdatedifthechanged circumstancesresultinasignificantchangeinthefairshareofcostsallocatedtonew development.Itisestimatedthat60%ofprojectcostswillbefundedfromnonfee revenue.Therefore,developmentimpactfeeswillnotbeusedforthepurposeof correctingexistingdeficienciesintheroadwaysystem.
3)TheCitywillrestricttheuseofTIFrevenuestothoseprojectsidentifedintheStudyand thatareneedtoservenewdevelopment. PublicfacilitiesfundedbytheTIFwillprovide acitywidenetworkofservicesaccessibletotheadditionalresidentsandworkers associatedwithnewdevelopment. Thus,thereisareasonablerelationshipbetweenthe useofTIFrevenuesandtheresidentialandnonresidentialtypesofnewdevelopment thatwillpaythefee.
4)Newdwellingunitsandbuildingsquarefootageareindicatorsofnewdailyvehicletrips generatedwhichcreatesthedemandfortrafficfacilitiesneededtoaccommodate growth.Asadditionaldwellingunitsandbuildingsquarefootagearecreated, the occupantsofthesestructureswillplaceadditionalburdensonthetrafficfacilities. The totalamountofthefeechargedforeachprojectwillbedeterminedbasedontraffic engineeringreportspreparedbytheCitythatquantifytheexpecteddailyvehicletrips generatedandtrafficimpactsofthenewdevelopment.
5)AreasonablerelationshipbetweentheTIFforaspecificdevelopmentprojectandthe costofthefacilitiesattributabletothatprojectexistbecausethefeeamountisbased ontheestimateddailyvehicletripstheprojectwilladdtopublicroadways. Larger projectsofacertainlandusetypewillhaveahighertripgenerationandpayahigherfee thansmallerprojectsofthesamelandusetype. Thus,thefeescheduleensuresa reasonablerelationshipbetweentheTIFforaspecificdevelopmentprojectandthecost ofthefacilitiesattributabletothatproject.

WHEREAS, theFinalTIFStudyandtheJanuary20TIFStudybothsatisfytherequirementsof GovernmentCodeSection66000.( i.e.MitigationFeeAct);and
WHEREAS,CityCouncil,maybyresolution,adoptannualincreasestothetrafficmitigation impactfeestoaccountfortheincreaseduetoinflation; and
WHEREAS,CityCouncil,fromtimetotimeandatitssolediscretion, maybyresolution,adopt updatedtrafficmitigationimpactfeesbasedonarevisiontotheStudypursuanttotheMitigationFee Act.

NOW,THEREFORE, BEITRESOLVEDthattheCityCounciloftheCityofAmericanCanyonhereby supersedesResolution# 201502,makesthefindingsnotedaboveandapprovesthatcertainFinalTraffic ImpactFeeNexusStudy datedFebruary3,2015,andincorporatedbyreferenceasExhibitA.

NOW,THEREFORE, BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthattheCityCounciloftheCityofAmerican CanyonherebyrevisetheTrafficImpactFeetobeasfollows:
632
TrafficImpactFee
LandUseExistingFeeUnitofMeasurement
ResidentialAttached$
3,
2, 600PerDwellingUnitResidentialDetached$
954PerDwellingUnit Hotel/Motel$
1,470PerRoom Restaurant$624PerSeat
Retail/ Office$

7. 02PerSquareFoot
02PerSquareFoot Industrial$
LandUseNewFeeUnitofMeasurement

2. All$
552PerNetNewDailyTrip
PASSED, APPROVEDANDADOPTEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCityof rdAmericanCanyonheldonthe3dayofFebruary,
2015, bythefollowingvote: MAYORGARCIA:_______ VICEMAYORLEARY:_______ COUNCILMEMBERBENNETT:_______
COUNCILMEMBERJOSEPH:_______
COUNCILMEMBERRAMOS:_______
LeonGarcia,
Mayor
ATTEST:APPROVEDASTOFORM:

RebekahBarr, MMC,
CityClerkWilliamD. Ross,CityAttorney
633
FINALTRAFFIC IMPACT FEE

NEXUSSTUDY
Preparedby
JasonB. Holley, P.E., PublicWorksDirector
February3, 2015
634

1. INTRODUCTION
Thefollowing isananalysis supporting theupdateofdevelopment impact mitigation feesfortransportation improvements intheCityofAmerican Canyon.

Thepurpose ofthisTraffic Impact Mitigation FeeNexusStudy (TIFStudy) isto determine thecostofimprovements needed toaccommodate theadditional traffic generated byfuturedevelopment andtheappropriate shareofthosecosts tobe borne bynewdevelopment withintheCity.

TheCityadopted itscurrent Traffic ImpactFee (TIF) program in1999. TheTIFwas lastincreased in2006forsinglefamilyandmulti-family residential development andlastincreased inAugust2011fornon-residential development1 These increases wereintended toaccount forthecostofinflation; thelistof improvements andtheshareofthosecoststobebornebynewdevelopment within theCityremained unchanged.

Overthelast15years thattheTIFprogram hasbeeninplace, muchhaschanged. commercial retaildevelopment alongthe
highway andindustrial development intheGreenIsland areahasoccurred. Manyof theimprovements required toaccommodate theadditional trafficgenerated bythat development werecompleted. Inaddition, therehavebeennumerous changes in statelawrelated totransportation planning
StateDepartment ofTransportation (CalTrans) - especially inregards tothe operation ofStateRoute 29 (SR-29) - hasevolved.

ThisTIFStudyisintended tosupersede itpredecessor. Itcontains anupdated list ofimprovements needed toaccommodate theadditional trafficgenerated bynew development overthenext20years. Itisa exusstudyandprovides the following information toclearly satisfy therequirements oftheMitigation FeeAct: 2 TheIntroduction section identifies thepurpose oftheTIF andoutlines the findings required bytheAct. Italsodescribes therelationship between a mitigation feeprogram andth
impacts pursuant toCalifornia Environmental QualityAct
TheGrowthProjections section includes adiscussion oftrafficgrowth assumptions. Theseassumptions areusedtocalculate thegrowth indifferent landusecategories andtocalculate theincrease inannual average daily vehicle trips (AADT) anticipated bytheyear2035. Using thesevehicle trip ratesestablishes areasonable relationship between theneedfortheTIFand thetypeofdevelopment payingtheTIF.

TheTraffic ImpactAnalysis section analyzes impactoftheprojected growth intraffic. Assessing theimpactofaverage number ofdailyvehicle trips generated byeachlandusecategory isthelinkbetween newdevelopment 1Ordinances 99-18, 2006-10, 2011-05; American Canyon Municipal CodeChapter15.12 2California Government CodeSection66000etseq.,
Page2of37 635
andthedirectimpact
uses.

TheFuture Improvements section describes theestimated costof improvements tobefunded byTIFrevenue. Moreover, itidentifies thefair sharepercentage ofthosecostsoftheimprovements thatareattributable to newdevelopment inAmerican Canyon.

TheFeeSchedule calculates theTIFonapernetnewdailyvehicle trip basis. Thisfeeiscalculated bydividing thecostoftheimprovements tobe funded bytheTIFprogram bythenumber ofvehicle tripsgenerated bynew development. Theresultisauniform TIF ($/trip) acrossalllanduses.

General PlanCirculation Element
covers 10elements whichgenerally prescribe hownew
development willoccur. TheCirculation Element, lastupdated in2013, specifically addresses transportation issues inthecontext ofnewdevelopment. Itskey objectives include:

Providing
overthenext21years (through 2035).

Policies thatfoster safeandeasytravelwithinandthrough thecityfor pedestrians, bicyclists, andmotor vehicles byachieving anacceptable multimodal levelofservice atmostintersections androadway segments.

Providing abalanced, multimodal transportation network thatmeets the needsofallusersofstreets, roads, andhighways, oftenreferred toas Promoting localplanning andfoster cooperation between jurisdictional partners suchastheNapaCounty Transportation andPlanning Agency NCTPA), BayAreaMetropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Association ofBayAreaGovernment (ABAG), andCaltrans.

Coordinating planning forlanduse, transportation, andhousing tofurther meettherequirements ofSenateBill (SB) 375, theSustainable Communities andClimateProtection Actof2008.

TheCirculation Element analyzes current andfutureroadway configurations. Italso entlyoperate
andhowtheywilloperate inthefuture. Analysis aboutfutureconditions isbased onlanduseassumptions andregional travelbehavior modeling contained inthe Napa-SolanoTravel Demand Model (Napa-SolanoTDM).

TheNapa-Solano TDMindicates thatbytheYear2035, several majorarterials and intersections alongStateRoute 29 (SR-29) wouldoperate belowthethresholds established intheGeneral Plan. Theprojected increase intraffic volume isdueto bothlocalgrowth andregional growth. Regional growth isshown toimpactSR-29 inparticular.

StateRoute 29Gateway CorridorImprovement Plan
TheState Route 29Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan (SR-29CorridorPlan) was completed in2014byNCTPA, withsignificant inputfromCaltrans andtheCity. Its purpose wastodevelop acommunity-driven visionforthesouthern portion ofSRPage3of37 636 29, including thosesegments located withintheCity. TheSR-29Corridor Plan process brought together diverse interests andaddresses theneeds anddesires of residents, commuters, business owners, visitors andstakeholders, toimprove mobility, safety, andcommunity character alongthecorridor. Italsoconsiders the roleplayedbyalltransportation modes including auto, truck, bus, rail, bicycle and pedestrian. During theSR-29Corridor Planprocess, anew, highlysophisticated computer model (SR-29VISSIM Model) wasdeveloped asanextension ofthe Napa-SolanoTDMtoanalyze futuretraveldemand behavior andtrafficcongestion.

Consistent withtheCirculation Element, theSR-29Corridor Planrecommends widening thehighway to6-lanesandmaking certain intersection improvements overthenext20+ years. Thedesign oftheseimprovements isreferred toasa Modified Boulevard
PublicFacilities Financing InCalifornia
Thechanging fiscal landscape inCalifornia during thepastthreedecades has steadily undercut thefinancial capacity oflocalgovernments tofundinfrastructure needed forgrowth. Threedominant trends andevents standout:

Thepassage ofastringoftaxlimitation measures, starting withProposition 13in1978andcontinuing through thepassage ofProposition 218in1996.

Declining popular support forbondmeasures tofinance infrastructure forthe nextgeneration ofresidents andbusinesses.

Steep reductions infederal andstateassistance.

Faced withtheseevents, theCityhasshifted theburden offunding infrastructure expansion fromexisting taxpayers tonewdevelopment. Thisfunding shifthasbeen partlyaccomplished bytheimposition ofdevelopment impact feessuchastheTIF.

Amajority voteoftheCityCouncil isrequired foradoption ofsuchfees.

Asaresultofthechanging landscape, mostlocalagencies haveimplemented impact feeprograms. Itisimportant thatthefeeamounts collected coverthefull costoftheimprovements required tomaintain theexisting levelofservice standards asgrowth occurs. Whenlocalagencies donotcollectthefullamount, theeffectisoftenadecline infacility standards unless, otherrevenue sources such astheCitymust beallocated tomakeuptheshortfall.

Authority toImpose Impact FeesandMitigation FeeActCompliance Theauthority fortheCitytoimpose feestomitigate impacts generated bynew development isrooted initsfundamental policepowers underArticleXISection 7of theCalifornia Constitution. Ingeneral, thisauthority provides thattheCitymay makeandenforce ordinances whicharenotinconflict withstatelaw. TheCity, andthenatural
environment, mayregulate newdevelopment, including therighttoimpose conditions ondevelopment which mayrequire directprovision ofpublic improvements, landdedications, andin-lieufees.

Asaresultoftheever-growing useofimpactfeesfollowing thepassage of Proposition 13, theStateLegislature passed theMitigation FeeActin1988. The Page4of37 637
Actestablished ground rulesfortheimposition andongoing administration of impactfeeprograms. TheActrequires localgovernments todocument the following whenadopting animpact feesuchastheTIF:

Identify thepurpose ofthefee.

Identify theuseoffeerevenues.

Determine areasonable relationship between thefee'suseandthetypeof development paying thefee.

Determine areasonable relationship between theneedforthefeeandthe typeofdevelopment paying thefee.

Determine areasonable relationship between theamount ofthefeeandthe costofthefacility attributable todevelopment payingthefee.

Together theseitems above . ThisTIFStudy isthe
complies withtheActbyproviding therequired documentation fortheabove findings. Itisimportant tonotethatwhiletheCityisnotrequired to establish theTIFasdocumented intheStudy (anditmayelecttoadoptalowerfee levels), itmaynotestablish TIFhigherthanwhatisidentified intheStudy.

Additionally, theaggregate oftheTIFcollected cannot totalmorethantheactual costoftheimprovements needed toservethedevelopment paying thefee. As proposed, theamount ofTIFcollected willfundonly40% ofthecostofthe improvements.

Moreover, anyexisting deficiencies mustberemedied usingfundsotherthanTIF, andnewdevelopment shallnotberequired topayforanincrease inthelevelof service forthebenefitofexisting development, unlessexisting development is committed topaying itsshareofthecost. Inrecognition ofthisstandard, theTIF program allocates onlythatproportionate shareofimpacts attributable to development withinAmerican Canyon. Funding toaddress thedeficiency especially alongSR-29) isanticipated tobeStateandFederal grants, etc.

Lastly, theActprohibits impact feerevenues frombeingusedforstaffing, operations, andmaintenance ofeitherexisting ornewfacilities. ThisTIFStudy doesnotconsider theprojected operational and/ormaintenance costsofanyof thesefacilities, which, overtheirlifecycle, willbequitesubstantial. Inorderto comply withtheAct, theCityproposes touserevenues otherthanTIF (suchasits General Fund) forstaffing, operations, andmaintenance oftheexisting and/ornew facilities.

TheActhasspecific accounting andreporting requirements bothannually andafter every five-yearperiodfortheuseoffeerevenues. Itisthepractice oftheCityto provide regular updates totheCouncil (asprescribed bytheAct) astotheamounts andplanned usesoftheTIFcollected.

Page5of37 638
California Environmental QualityAct
Properly administered impact feeprograms suchastheTIFcanstreamline environmental reviewofdevelopment projects undertheCalifornia Environmental QualityAct. (CEQA) 3Atthesametime, impact feeprograms whicharenot implemented inaccordance withtheoriginal expectations orwhicharefounded uponunrealistic assumptions maynotsuffice alonetoactasmitigation measures forcumulative trafficimpacts.

Significant caselawoverthelastfifteen yearsdemonstrates howandwhenafee program suchastheTIFmaybeusedasanenvironmental mitigation. Inone example, (Anderson4FirstCoalitionfee
permissible aseffective mitigation ifthefeesare "partofareasonable planof actual mitigation thattherelevant agency commits itselftoimplementing." The courtheldthatafeeprogram would bepermissible aslongthemitigation measure specified theamount ofthefeeandthepercentage offutureimprovements for whichthisdeveloper would beresponsible. Thecourtalsoemphasized thatthefees mustbeareasonable, enforceable partofanimprovement planthatwillactually mitigate thecumulative effects.
implementation ofthe
policies, programs andprojects identified intheCirculation Element isintended to serveassubstantial evidence thatthecollection ofthisfeemayactadequately act asastandalone mitigation measure(s) forthepotentially cumulative traffic impacts thatmayoccurasaresultoffuturedevelopment projects.
3PublicResources CodeSection21000etseq.
4Anderson First Coalition v. CityofAnderson (2005) 130Cal.App.4th1173 Page6of37 639

2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS
Theestimate ofexisting population, housing units, andemployment establishes a baseline fordetermining impacts totheroadnetwork fromfutureland development. Measuring thetrafficimpacts ofgrowth requires anestimate of futuredevelopment withindifferent landusecategories. Thegeneral landusetypes usedinthisanalysis aredefined below. Thesecategories represent awiderangeof possible usesforland. Sinceitisnotpossible topredictwhattypesoflanduseswill bedeveloped withmorespecificity, thesebroadcategories aredefined inorderto facilitate thecalculation ofareasonable estimate ofthetotalnumber ofnewvehicle trips:

Single-family: Detached andattached (townhomes andcondominiums) onefamilydwelling units, andmobile homes.

Multi-family: Dwelling unitssuchasduplexes andapartments.

MobileHomes: Includes modular homes andunitsinmodel homeparks.

Retail/Commercial: Includes butisnotlimited to: service commercial, retail, retail-warehouse, educational, foodservice, andhotel/moteldevelopment.

Office: Allgeneral, professional, andmedical officedevelopment.

Industrial/Warehouse: Allmanufacturing, fabrication, foodprocessing, warehousing, truckyards, terminals, anddistribution centers. Thiscategory mayalsoencompass business parksandresearch anddevelopment space.

Somedevelopments mayinclude morethanonelandusecategory, suchasmixedusedevelopment withbothresidential andcommercial uses. Inthesecasesthe impact feewouldbecalculated separately foreachlandusecategory contained withintheproject.

NewDevelopment TripGeneration
Thetripgeneration ratesvaryconsiderably bylandusetype, meaning thatthe impactofthedifferent landusesalsovarieswidely depending notonlyonthesize oftheproject bythetypeofuse. InthisTIFStudy, thetotalnumber ofnewtrips bytheyear2035isestimated fromtheprojected growthinalllanduses.

Figure 1belowprovides anestimate ofAADTgeneration andanestimate oftrip generation fromanticipated newdevelopment. Thenumberofexisting and proposed unitsisbaseduponvarious sources including theNapa-Solano TDM, and the 2010UrbanWater Management Plan, 2013Circulation Element, and2014 Housing Element updates. Thetripgeneration ratesarefromlatestedition ofthe ITETripGeneration Manual.

Currently, theAADTintheCityisestimated tobe98,716tripsperday. By2035, theAADTintheCityisforecast togrowbyapproximately 89,672tripsperday.

Thisgrowthintraffic forms thebasisfortheTIFcollected onaperdailytrip.

Page7of37 640
Figure1 - NewDevelopment TripGeneration (2014-2035)
ExistingUnits AADT ExistingAADT
LandUse ( 2014) PerUnit ( 2014)
Residential (DU)
SingleFamily 4,965 9.6 47,664
Multi-family 257 6.7 1,722
MobileHome 849 5 4,245
ExistingResidentialSubtotal 6,071 53,631
Non-residential (KSF)
Office 30 11 330
Commercial/Retail 450 43 19,350
Industrial/Warehouse 5,081 5 25,405
ExistingNon-ResidentialSubtotal 5,561 45,085
ExistingAverageAnnualDailyTripsTotal 98,716
NewDevelop. AADT NewDevelop.

LandUse ( 2014-2035) perUnit AADT
Residential (DU)
SingleFamily 1,300 9.6 12,480
Multi-family 2,000 6.7 13,400
MobileHome - 5 -
NewDev. ResidentialSubtotal 3,300 25,880
Non-residential (KSF)
Office 200 11 2,200
Commercial/Retail 834 43 35,862
Industrial/Warehouse 5,146 5 25,730
NewDev. Non-ResidentialSubtotal 6,180 63,792
New Development Average Annual DailyTrips Total 89,672
Cumulative AADT Cumulative
LandUse ( 2035) perUnit AADT
Residential (DU)
SingleFamily 6,265 9.6 60,144
Multi-family 2,257 6.7 15,122
MobileHome 849 5 4,245
Cumulative ResidentialSubtotal 9,371 79,511
Non-residential (KSF)
Office 230 11 2,530
Commercial/Retail 1,284 43 55,212
Industrial/Warehouse 10,227 5 51,135
Cumulative Non-ResidentialSubtotal 11,741 108,877
CumulativeAverageAnnualDailyTripsTotal 188,388
Page8of37 641

3. Traffic ImpactAnalysis
This section analyzes theimpacts oftheprojected growth identified inSection 2.

Assessing theimpactoftheaverage number ofdailytripsgenerated byeachland usecategory isthelinkbetween newdevelopment andthedirectimpacts onthe C
Theoperational performance ofaroadway network iscommonly described withthe conditions, ranging fromLOSA (freeflowtrafficconditions withlittleornodelay) to LOSF (oversaturated conditions where traffic flowsexceed design capacity, resulting inlongqueues anddelays). Themethods forcalculating LOSare LOSisbased ontheweighted average controldelaymeasured inseconds per vehicle. Control delay includes initialdeceleration delay, queue move-uptime (if multiple cyclesareneeded tocleartheintersection), stopped delay, andfinal acceleration. WhiletheCirculation Element specifies anLOSDduring thepeak periodsastheminimally acceptable standard formostintersections intheCity, it recognizes thatlesserLOSarepermissible forSR-29.

Figure 2 - Intersection LOSCriteria
Level Average
of ControlDelay
Service Description ( Seconds)
A Operationswithverylowdelayoccurringwith < 10
favorable trafficsignalprogressionand/orshortcycle
lengths.

B Operationswithlowdelayoccurringwithgood > 10to20
progressionand/orshortcyclelengths.

C Operationswithaveragedelaysresultingfromfair > 20to35 progression and/orlongercyclelengths. Individual
cyclefailuresbegintoappear.

D Operationswithlongerdelaysduetoacombination > 35to55
ofunfavorableprogression, longcyclelengths, or
highV/Cratios. Manyvehiclesstopandindividual
cyclefailuresarenoticeable.

E Operationswithhighdelayvaluesindicatingpoor > 55to80
progression, longcyclelengths, andhighV/Cratios.

Individualcyclefailuresarefrequentoccurrences.

Thisisconsidered tobethelimitofacceptable delay.

F Operationswithdelaysunacceptable tomostdrivers > 80
occurringduetoover-saturation, poorprogression,
orverylongcyclelengths.

TheCirculation Element andtheSR-29Corridor Plan identify traffic improvements needed toaccommodate newdevelopment. Thesedeterminations arebasedupon Page9of37 642
aLOSanalysis thatinvolves themodeling oftrafficoperations onexisting roadways andintersections throughout theCity. Therecommended improvements arebased onaninventory oftransportation needs. ThisTIFStudy identifies areasonable relationship between impact feesonnewdevelopment andthedemand fornewor upgraded facilities generated bythenewdevelopment payingtheTIF. Fortraffic facilities thisrelationship isshown bycomparing thecurrentLOSofspecific roadways withtheLOSthatwouldresultbyadding thetripsassociated withthe projected newdevelopment.
mitigate theimpacts oftheprojected development. Inthetrafficmodeling process, impact mitigation measures intheformofroadwidening, intersection improvements, ornewroadsegments arethenadded tothenetwork toachieve the anacceptable LOSduring peakperiods. Thisprocedure ensures thatthemeasures resultintheadopted LOSstandard andtheLOSthattheCitygenerally experiences today. Byidentifying thesespecific mitigation measures, andbasing theimpact fee onthecostofthesemeasures, thisprocedure alsomaintains therelationship between theimpact feeandthepurpose ofthefeerevenues.

Formanyoftheimprovements analyzed intheCirculation Element, theSynchro software package isusedtomodel trafficconditions. Synchro isamacrosimulation toolthatusesdeterministic equations toevaluate operations atanintersection.

However, inconjunction withtheSR-29Corridor Plan, duetotheexisting congestion ontheSR-29corridor, theVISSIM software package wasusedtomodel theeffectsofclosely spaced intersections andqueue spillback fromoneintersection toanother. VISSIM isastochastic microsimulation software thatanalyzes the trafficoperations bysimulating themovement ofindividual cars, trucks, transit vehicles, pedestrians, andbicycles. Different random seednumbers generate different driverbehaviors andsystem results. Themodel isrunmultiple times to account fortherandomness ofthesimulations andtoensure thattheresults are reasonable. VISSIM allows theusertocontrol vehicle inputs, vehicle routes, vehicle fleetcomposition, desired speeds throughout thenetwork, conflict areasto determine yielding behavior, driverbehavior, parking areasandbehavior, and pedestrian andbicycle volumes andbehavior. VISSIM alsoreflects thatconditions atonelocation canaffect conditions atanother (i.e. queuespillback fromone because ofpooroperations atanupstream location). Thesoftware usesrandom seedvalues togenerate vehicle entrytimeandvehicle characteristics. Theresults areanaverage oftenrunswithdifferent random seeds. Usingtheintersection delayresults, theintersection LOSwasassigned.

Current andForecasted LevelofService
TheCirculation Element andtheSR-29Corridor Plan identify locations thatwillbe significantly impacted bynewvehicle tripsandthatwillexceed theLOSstandard thresholds forvehicle/capacity andintersection delay. Thefollowing arethecurrent andforecasted LOSatkeylocations intheCity:

Page10of37 643
Figure3 LevelofService (PMPeakHour)
Existing Future
Location ( 2014) ( 2035)
SR-29, NorthofGreen IslandRoad E F
SR-29, SouthofGreenIslandRoad E F
NapaJunction Road / SR-29intersection F F
Eucalyptus Drive/ SR-29intersection B F
RioDelMar / SR-29intersection B D
SR-29, NorthofSouthNapaJunction Road F F
SouthNapaJunction Road / SR-29intersection B F
SR-29, NorthofDonaldson Way F F
Donaldson Way / SR-29intersection D F
SR-29, NorthofAmerican Canyon Road F F
American Canyon Road / SR-29intersection D F
American Canyon Road / Newell Drive intersection D F
American Canyon Road / SilverOaksTrail intersection D F Page11of37 644

4. Future Improvements
Future Improvements
TheCirculation Element andSR-29Corridor Planidentify various improvements thatwillbenecessary toaccommodate theincrease intraffic volumes thatwill occurasaresultofdevelopment proposed withintheCity. BoththeCirculation Element andtheSR-29CorridorPlananticipate afuturehighway design (Modified Boulevard) thatincludes six (6) through lanes, alandscaped centralmedian anda ClassIshared usepathforbicycles andpedestrians onbothsidesofthehighway, separated fromtheroadway withlandscaped planter strips. ThisTIFStudyalso includes bicycle andpedestrian improvements inaddition totheroadway improvements identified intheCirculation Element.

Theroadimprovements needed tomitigate theimpacts fromthisdevelopment are directly related totheincreased travelontheCi. Eachproject includes sidewalk, landscaping, andbikelanes - allinconformance totheroadway standards forthegivenstreet classification, i.e. majorarterial, collector, etc.

General locations anddescriptions ofthesefutureimprovements areshownin Figures 4a-4dbelow. Complete descriptions andconstruction costestimates are presented inAppendix A.

Page12of37 645
646
647
Figure4c - Description ofFutureSR-29Improvements
StateRoute 29 - Southern CityLimittoNorthern CityLimits Widen fromfour (4) through lanes tosix (6) through lanes (including Paoli LoopOvercrossing) andClassIbikeways andlandscaping (Modified Boulevard).

SR29/Kimberly DriveIntersection
Restrict northbound left-turnandeastbound left-turnlanes.

SR29/American Canyon RoadIntersection
Add2ndexclusive westbound right-turnand2ndexclusive eastbound leftturnslanes Relocate traffic signal.

SR29/Crawford WayIntersection
Restrict eastbound left-turnlane
SR29/Donaldson WayIntersection
Add2ndexclusive eastbound left-turnandexclusive eastbound right-turn lanes.

Add2ndexclusive westbound left-turn.

Addexclusive northbound andsouthbound right-turnlanes.

Relocate traffic signal.

SR29/PocoWay/SouthNapaJunction Intersection
Adddualeastbound left-turnlanesandeastbound right-turnlane Adddualwestbound left-turnlanesandwestbound right-turnlane Addexclusive northbound left-turnandright-turnlanesandanexclusive southbound right-turnlane.

Newtraffic signal.

SR29/Eucalyptus DriveIntersection
Neweastbound approach toinclude singlethrough, dualeastbound leftturn, exclusive eastbound right-turnlanesandsinglewestbound receiving lane.

Addwest-boundthrough lane.

Remove RioDelMartraffic signal.

Addexclusive northbound left-turnandsouthbound right-turnlanes.

Relocate traffic signal
SR29/NapaJunction RoadIntersection
Phase1Improvements
Add2ndexclusive westbound left-turnandexclusive westbound right-turn lanes
Add2ndexclusive eastbound left-turnandexclusive eastbound right-turn lanes
Relocate traffic signal
SR29/GreenIslandRd
Add500-footlongnorthbound andsouthbound acceleration lanes Page15of37 648
Figure4d - Description ofFuture Local Improvements
Green IslandRoad
WidenroadfromSR29toCommerce Blvd. andaddtwo-wayturnlane Widenrailroad crossing
NewellDrive
New4-lanearterial fromDonaldson WaytoSouth NapaJunction Road Newsignalized intersection atSouth NapaJunction Roadwithexclusive northbound left-turnandsouthbound right-turnlanes.

SouthNapaJunction Road
New3-laneand2-lanecollector fromSR29toextension ofNewell Drive MainStreet
New3-lanecollector fromEucalyptus DrivetoSouthNapaJunction Road DevlinRoadSegment H
New3-lanecollector fromrailroad overcrossing toGreen IslandRoad Eucalyptus Drive
Widen to2-lanecollector fromWetlands EdgeRoadtoSR29.

Newroundabout atTheresaAvenue Intersection
Commerce Drive
New2-lanecollector fromsouthern terminus toEucalyptus Drive Newall-waystopcontrolled intersection atEucalyptus Drive Class IBikeways
RivertoRidgeTrail
Eucalyptus: MainStreet toTeresa
SanFrancisco BayTrail
VineTrail
RailroadPath
SilverOakTrail
Entrada Trail
Entrada CircletoFlosden Avenue
Hwy29Pedestrian Overcrossing
Class IIBikeways
MelvinRd.

HessRoad
Donaldson Way
ElliotDrive
Eucalyptus Drive
RioDelMar
Page16of37 649
CostofFuture Improvements
Below issummary ofthecostsofimprovements. Amoredetailed costestimate for eachCityimprovement isshown inAttachment A.

Figure5 FutureProjectCosts
StateRoute 29 CostEstimate
Southern American Canyon $ 6,782,782
CentralAmerican Canyon $ 24,907,339
Northern American Canyon $ 28,116,835
SR-29Subtotal $ 59,806,956
LocalStreets $ 46,677,867
Bicycle andPedestrian Facilities $ 12,098,458
Project CostTotal $ 118,583,280
CostAllocation
Thecostoftheimprovements thatareallocated tonewdevelopmentin other words, thecostthatisrecoverable through thetrafficimpact feeisshown in Figure 6below. Theallocation forimprovements onSR-29isapproximately 21% of thetotalcost, whichisthepercentage oftheprojected increase intrafficonSR-29 thatisattributed togrowth intraffic volume duetodevelopment withinAmerican Canyon. Thispercentage isderived bydividing thetotalamount oftripsanticipated tobegenerated bynewdevelopment withinAmerican Canyon bythetotalamount ofregional volume (including butnotlimited tothevolumes generated by development inAmerican Canyon). Itisassumed thatdevelopment inAmerican Canyon occurs according tothehighest andbestusesasperthezoning prescribed basedonthe2035Napa- Solano Transportation Demand Model.

Costallocations forlocalstreets varydepending ontheextent towhichthe improvement benefits existing versus futuredevelopment; a100percent allocation totheimpact feeindicates theimprovement wouldprovide abenefit toonlynew development, suchasastreetextension thatprovides access toadevelopment project. Theoverall allocation forimprovements onCityStreets isapproximately 74% ofthetotalcost, whichisthepercentage oftheprojected increase intrafficon SR-29thatisattributed togrowth intraffic volume duetodevelopment within American Canyon.

Alltold, theoverall allocation forallimprovements isapproximately $49.5million or 40% ofthetotalproject cost ($122million). Thepercentage ofTIFallocations for eachproject isshown inAppendix A.

Traffic Impact feeProgram CostperUnit
Usingauniform costpertripapproach ensures thatthevarious typesofland relative impactontheroad. Asshown inFigure 6below, thetotalestimated costof Page17of37 650
alltransportation system improvements, including bicycle facilities, is approximately $122million, andthecostallocated tothenewdevelopment is $49.5 million.

Figure 6Summary ofCostAllocation
TIFProgram ProjectCost $ 118,583,280
OtherFundingSources <$ 69,061,711>
TIFProgram Total $ 49,521,570
AsnotedinSection 3, thefuturegrowthinAADTbynewdevelopment inAmerican Canyon isanticipated tobe89,672tripsperday. TheTIFperAADTiscalculated by dividing thecostallocated tonewdevelopment (49.5million) bytheamount of AADTgrowth (89,672). Theresultisauniform TIFacrossalllandusesof 552/trip.

Example TIFSchedule
TheamountoftheTIFiscalculated priortotheapproval oftheproject anditis paidinconjunction withtheissuance ofabuilding permit. Theamount isbasedon thenumber ofnetnewdailyvehicle tripstobegenerated bytheproject. Thetrip generation tablepublished bytheInstitute ofTransportation Engineers (ITE) lists thetripratesperunitofdevelopment ofnearly 200specific uses. Theseratesmay becombined withthecostpertripnotedabove tocalculate theTIFforanygiven development project.

Forcomparative purposes, anexample feeschedule isshownFigure 7below. This example includes proposed feesonthetwopredominant residential typesandthe typicalnonresidential usesinAmerican Canyon.

Figure 7 Schedule ofExample TIFforCommon LandUses
Current Proposed
AADTper FeePer Feeper
LandUse Units Unit Unit Unit
Residential
SingleFamily DU 9.6 $ 3,954 $ 5,299
Multi-Family DU 6.7 $ 2,600 $ 3,698
Non-residential
Office 1,000SF 11.0 $ 7,020 $ 6,072
Commercial/Retail 1,000SF 43.0 $ 7,020 $ 23,736
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000SF 5.0 $ 2,020 $ 2,760
OtherFunding Sources
Figure 6showsasubstantial amountoffunding ($69million) required fromsources otherthantheTIFprogram. TheActrequires thatotherfunding sources necessary forthecompletion ofprojects shallbeidentified atthetimeoftherequired fiveyearannual impact feereport. Italsorequires thattheCitydesignate the Page18of37 651
approximate datesonwhichthefunding necessary tocomplete financing ofthose improvements willbedeposited intotheappropriate account ofthefund. Several individual improvement projects maybefunded exclusively bythefee, suchasan extension required foraspecific development project. ManyoftheCirculation benefits oftheimprovement projectaccrue tomoreparties thanjustnewcitywide landdevelopment; the79percentregional shareforSR-29isoneexample. The benefitting parties mayalsobeadjacent properties needing theproject forfrontage improvements, oraccess inordertodevelop. Existing development inthecitymay alsobenefitfromthetraffic improvements bythereduction intrafficdelay, inwhich casethecurrentresidents andbusiness areobligated tocontribute tothe improvement. Afewpotential sources offunding tocomplete projects aredescribed below.

General Fund
TheGeneral Fundisprimarily allocated tomaintenance andoperational expenses forallthemunicipal services provided bytheCity. Otherfinancing mechanisms are needed toinitially construct public improvements, andthengeneral fundmonies would beexpected tofinance theongoing maintenance costsoncethe improvements areaccepted bytheCity. Roadmaintenance andreconstruction costsaresubstantial; overthelifeofaroadway theycanbeexpected toexceed the initialacquisition cost. General Fundmonies havetypically notbeenavailable for majorroadimprovements, buthavebeenusedforlocal improvements suchas trafficsignals, turn-pockets, andpedestrian ramps.

Regional, StateandFederal Funding
TheSR-29Corridor Plan contemplates thatstateandfederal fundswillbeusedto complete substantial portions oftheSR-29improvements. ThisTIFStudyassumes that79percent ofthecostofwidening SR-29toasix-lanearterial willbefromstate and/orfederal funding programs suchastheStateTransportation Improvement Program (STIP) andStateHighway Operations andProtection Program (SHOPP). Itis anticipated thattheCitymayuseTIFtocoverthelocalmatch fundtypically required onstatehighway projects. Stateandfederal financial assistance programs areoften available formajorCirculation Element improvements thathavearegional benefit.

These programs typically donotfundentireprojects andwouldnotfundlocal improvements needed exclusively fornewdevelopment.

ProjectExactions, Dedications, andMitigations
Landdevelopers areobligated toprovide traffic impact mitigation improvements corresponding tothreelevelsofimpacts: 1) projectfrontage andaccess requirements; 2) directimpacts; and3) cumulative impacts. Frontage improvements andprovisions forproject access, anddirecttraffic impact imposed requirements thatwouldnotnecessarily require reimbursement fromthe impact fee. Whileitisnotahardandfastrule, impactmitigation feeprograms are typically designed tofundthecumulative impact mitigation measures required ofall citywide development, whiledirectimpact measures, including frontage andaccess, aretobeconstructed bythedevelopment project. Areimbursement outofimpact Page19of37 652
feefundsmayinsomecasesbegranted ifthedeveloper-constructed improvements aredetermined toexceed thedirectimpact mitigation requirements. Theuseof impactfeesasareimbursement facilitation mechanism isdescribed further below.

Developer Reimbursement Agreements
Roadimprovements thatareoff-siteofaproject and/orprovide benefits beyond theprojectmaybeconstructed inconjunction withthedevelopment ofaproject, suchaswhenaroadextension isrequired toprovide accessandotherproperties maybeserved bythesameimprovement inthefuture. Insuchinstances, developer reimbursement agreements maybeexecuted toprovide forafuture payback tothedeveloper fortheadditional costofthesefacilities. Future developments arerequired topaybacktheirfairshareofthecosts fortheshared facilitywhen development occurs. Theimpact feecanactasamechanism forsuch reimbursements ifthereimbursed amounts areclearly identified aspayback for improvements inexcessofthecostofbothdirectimpacts (including frontage and access) andtheimpact feeobligation itself.

Page20of37 653

APPENDIX A

PROJECT COSTALLOCATION ANDFEECALCUALTION
Page21of37 654

FINAL -

TRAFFICIMPACTFEENEXUSSTUDY
463.)'8 378 003'%8-32
2(
0'90%8-32
4VITEVIH F] EWSR SPPI] 4
4YFPMG SVOW MVIGXSV
6IZMWIH IFVYEV]
Page22of37 655

TRAFFICIMPACTFEEPROGRAM - FINAL
0-78 3* 463.)'87
7XEXI 6SYXI
FromSouthCityLimitstoNorthCityLimits (Widening)
SR29/KimberlyDriveIntersection (Modifications)
SR29/AmericanCanyonRoadIntersection (Widening)
SR29/CrawfordWayIntersection
SR29/DonaldsonWayIntersection (Widening)
SR29/PocoWay/SouthNapaJunctionIntersection (NewSignal)
SR29/RioDelMarIntersection (SignalRemoval)
SR29/EucalyptusDriveIntersection (Realignment)
SR29/NapaJunctionRoadIntersection (Widening)
SR29/GreenIslandRd/NewellDriveIntersection (Widening)
0SGEP 7XVIIXW
GreenIslandRoad (Widening)
PaoliLoop (Widening)
SouthNapaJunctionRoad (NewExtension)
NewellDrive (NewExtension)
MainStreet (NewExtension)
EucalyptusDrive (Widening)
DevlinRoadSegmentH (NewExtension)
CommerceDrive (NewExtension)
0SGEP RXIVWIGXMSRW
NewellDrive/So. NapaJunctionIntersection (New)
EucalyptusDrive/TheresaAvenueIntersection (Roundabout)
EucalyptusDr/CommerceBlvd. Intersection (New)
PEWW MOI[E]W 2I[
RivertoRidgeTrail
Eucalyptus: MainStreettoTheresa
SanFranciscoBayTrail
VineTrail
RailroadPath
SilverOakTrail
EntradaTrail
EntradaCircletoFlosdenAvenue
Hwy29PedestrianOvercrossing
PEWW MOI[E]W 2I[
MelvinRd.

HessRoad
DonaldsonWay
ElliotDrive
EucalyptusDrive
RioDelMar
Page23of37 656
657
658
SRXVSP

RXIVWIGXMSR
8YVR 0ERIW
8LVSYKL
27 8YVR 0ERIW
0ERIW
27 8LVSYKL
SRXVSP

RXIVWIGXMSR
8YVR 0ERIW
8LVSYKL
27 8YVR 0ERIW
0ERIW
27 8LVSYKL
659
SRXVSP

RXIVWIGXMSR
8YVR 0ERIW
8LVSYKL
27 8YVR 0ERIW
0ERIW
27 8LVSYKL
SRXVSP

RXIVWIGXMSR
8YVR 0ERIW
8LVSYKL
27 8YVR 0ERIW
0ERIW
27 8LVSYKL
660
SRXVSP

RXIVWIGXMSR
8YVR 0ERIW
8LVSYKL 0ERIW 2 7 8YVR 0ERIW
27 8LVSYKL 0ERIW
SRXVSP

RXIVWIGXMSR
8YVR 0ERIW
8LVSYKL 0ERIW 2 7 8YVR 0ERIW
27 8LVSYKL 0ERIW
661

TRAFFIC IMPACT FEEPROGRAM - FINAL
4)()786-%
2 463.)' 8 3787 VIE 7*
SV 2SSJ 9RMXW 9RMX SWX EGMPMX]( IWGVMTXMSR SJ
QTVSZIQIRX0IRKXL 0*MHXL 0*
partofSouth Napa 7*SWX 6MZIV XS6MHKI 8VEMP Included as
Included as part Junction Road South Napa JunctionClass I Included as ofMainStreet MainStreetClass I
part of Eucalytpus Drive
EucalyptusClass I7ERVERGMWGS E]8VEMP Eucalyptus toMezzettaClass I3,1681238,016$9$330,739 Kimberly toKensingtonClass
I1,6901220,280$ 10$196,716 Catalina to Kimberly Class
I1,5841219,
partof Devlin Road 008$11$203,386MRI 8VEMP Included as
aspartofGreen Segment HDevlin RoadClass IIncluded
Island Road Green Island RoadClass IPaoli Loop toWatsonClass I4,6001255,200$9$480,240Watson: Paoli Loop toNewellClass I2,3001227,
600$9$240,1206EMPVSEH 4EXL Lombard to Green Island RoadClass I2,5351230,420$9$264,654 Lombard toWatsonClass
part ofHwy 29 Modified BoulevardSo. City I2,7981233,576$9$292,111Included as Limits to No.

City LimitsClass I7MPZIV 3EO8VEMP AmericanCanyon to Silver Oak ParkClass I1,9081222, 896$$199,195 American Canyon toShenandoahClass I2,6041231,
248$9$271,858RXVEHE 8VEMP Entrada Circle to Flosden AvenueClass 9$
I2,1221225, 464$
221, 537MKL[E]3ZIVGVSWWMRK TBDClass I3$
3, 000,000$9,
WEucalyptus 000,000 PEWW MOI[E] Drive to Lombard RoadMelvin Rd.4, 805$17$81,685 Hess Road Hess Rd. to
Commerce Blvd2,815$17$47, 855 Donaldson WayElliot
toEucalyptus4,276$17$72, 692 Donaldson WayAndrew
toNewell4,963$17$84,371 Elliot DriveKimberly Drive
Included aspartofEucalytpus toKnightsbridge1,267$17$21,539 Drive Eucalyptus DriveWetlands Edge toDonaldson Rio Del MarWetlandsEdge toSR295,280$17$89,760 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
PROJECT COSTTOTAL$12, 662

TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM - FINAL
7791)( 92-8 3787
STATE ROUTE 29WIDENING ( 6-LANE MODIFIED BOULEVARD
779148-327(- 1)27-327
Roadwayincludes (3) 12' laneseachdirection, 8' outershoulders, 4' left-sideshoulders. 48-ft (E) Pavement E) ROW140-ft +/-. Doesnotincludecoststowidento151-ft 48-ft (N) Pavement A14- ssumesnosewer, waterupgrades ft (ormodifications N) PlanterStrip Assumesexistingroadwayisstructurallysoundfornewtrafficindex. 26-ft(N) ClassIPath Existingpavingissawcutasnecessarytowidenorshiftlanesfornewsectionrequirements. 15-ft (N) LandscapedMedian Theexistingshoulderisassumedtoberequiredtoberemoved. 151-ft N) ROW Assumesconstantcross-sectionforentirelengthofroad
Stormwatertreatmentforallpavementwithinlandscapedareas (medianand/orshoulders) 92-8
7'6-48-32 92-8 46-') 59%28-8= 378 0* 311)287
StormDrainCatchBasinEA0.013 49BMPoverflowdrainspacingevery75-ft LF 3,700 JointTrench - Gas, Tel., CATV, Electric 1.000 200Undergroundingofoverheadlines StreetlightsandpullboxassembliesEA0.040 200 240(1) eachsideofstreet, 50-ftspacing PedestrianlightingEA0.6,080 000 401) eachsideofstreet, 25-spacing LandscapeandIrrigationSF 500 29.000 232
StreetTreesEA0.060 8 601) treesinmedianand (1) eachside, every50-ft Sidewalk (includingrock) SF 1,000 26.000 260
Curb & GutterLF 10 4.000 200
SubgradePreparationSF 50 74.000 56
TONS 0.75 A1. sphaltConcrete (AC) 950 3326.5-insection
TONS 170 A5. ggregateBase (AB) 000 30020-insection
TONS 60 A1. sphaltPavementOverlay 200 2042-intoplift
StripingLF 170 7.000 18
SignageEA0.2.033 50 12
StormWaterBMP's (Biofiltration) SF 350 4.880 488Withinlandscapedareas 36-inClassVRCPStormdrainLF 100 2.000 500
ExistingPavementRemovalLF 250 27.000 68
CONSTRUCTION 2.50 SUBTOTA$ L 3,257
PRELIMINARYENGINEERING (20% ofCONST)651$
RIGHTOFWAYACQUISITION ($10/SF)$-
CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENT/INSPECTION (15% ofCONS$ T 489
SUBTOTAL$ 4,397
CONTINGENCY -- 25%1,099$
838%0 TIV 0*
838%0 TIV 7*
Page30of37 663

TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM - FINAL
7791)( 92-8 3787
STATE ROUTE 29INTERSECTIONS
779148-327(- 1)27-327
Intersectionsinclude12' lanesandcanaccommodateSTAA-sizedVehicle 12-ftLanewidth Ultimatelaneconfiguration: dualleftturnlaness, singlethroughlaneandexclusiveright-turnlane 350-ftTurnpocket Doesnotincludecoststowidenright-of-way 10-ftSidewalk
Assumesnosewer, waterupgradesormodifications 5Numberoflanes Assumesexistingroadwayisstructurallysoundfornewtrafficindex. 70-ftRoadwaywidth Existingpavingissawcutasnecessarytowidenorshiftlanesfornewsectionrequirements. 90-ft R/Wwidth Theexistingshoulderisassumedtoberequiredtoberemoved.
5-ftClassIIbikelanebetweenthroughlaneandright-turnlane
92-8
7'6-48-32 92-8 46-') 59%28-8= 378 0* 311)287
StormDrainCatchBasinEA2 7,4001) eachside
JointTrench - Gas, Tel., CATV, LF ElectricUndergrounding 3,700 350 70,000ofoverheadlines StreetlightsandpullboxassembliesEA14200 84,0001) eachsideofstreet, 50-ftspacing StreetTreesEA146,000 14,0001) eachsideevery50-ft
Sidewalk (includingrock) SF 1,000 7000 70,000
Curb & GutterLF 10 700 35,000
SubgradePreparationSF 50 7700 5,775
TONS 0.75 A171 sphaltConcrete (AC) 29,0066.5-insection
TONS 170 A802 ggregateBase (AB) 48,12520-insection
sphaltPavement TONSOverlay2- 60 A306 intop52,063 lift
StripingLF 170 2450 6,125
SignageEA102.50 3,500
36-inClassVRCPStormdrainLF 350 350 87,500
CONSTRUCTION 250 SUBTOTA$ L 512,494
PRELIMINARYENGINEERING (20% ofCONST)102,499$
RIGHTOFWAYACQUISITION ($50/SF)$-
CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENT/INSPECTION (15% ofCONS$ T 76,874 SUBTOTAL691,867$
CONTINGENCY -- 25%172,967$
838%0 perapproach
838%0 TIV 7*
Page31of37 664

TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM - FINAL
7791)( 92-8 3787

LOCAL STREET - COLLECTOR/ ARTERIAL
779148-327(- 1)27-327
Includes12-ftlanesand4-ftbikelaneseachdirection, 8-ftsidewalk, 8-ftlandscadestripand16-ftmedian 0-ft (E) Pavement DoesnotincludecoststoacquireR/W 48-ft (N) Pavement
A0- ssumesnosewer, water ft ( upgradesorN) modifications PlanterStrip Assumesexistingroadwayisstructurallysoundfornewtrafficindex. 16-ft(N) Sidewalk Existingpavingissawcutasnecessarytowidenorshiftlanesfornewsectionrequirements. 16-ft (N) LandscapedMedian Theexistingshoulderisassumedtoberequiredtoberemoved. 80-ft N) ROW Assumesconstantcross-sectionforentirelengthofroad
Stormwatertreatmentforallpavementwithinlandscapedareas (medianand/orshoulders) 92-8
7'6-48-32 92-8 46-') 59%28-8= 378 0* 311)287
StormDrainCatchBasinEA0.013 49BMPoverflowdrainspacingevery75-ft JointTrench - Gas, Tel., CATV, LF ElectricUndergrounding 3,700 1.000 200ofoverheadlines StreetlightsandpullboxassembliesEA0.040 200 2401) eachsideofstreet, 50-ftspacing LandscapeandIrrigationSF 6,000 16.000 128
StreetTreesEA0.040 8 401) eachside, every50-ft
Sidewalk (includingrock) SF 1,000 16.000 160
Curb & GutterLF 10 2.000 100
SubgradePreparationSF 50 64.000 48
TONS 0.75 A1. sphaltConcrete (AC) 200 2044-insection
TONS 170 A3. ggregateBase (AB) 000 18012-insection
StripingLF 60 5.000 13
SignageEA0.2.010 50 41) eachside, every200-ft
StormWaterBMP's (Biofiltration) SF 350 2.560 26Withinlandscapedareas 24-inClassVRCPStormdrainLF 10 1.000 200
CONSTRUCTION 200 SUBTOTA$ L 1,591
PRELIMINARYENGINEERING (20% ofCONST)318$
CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENT/INSPECTION (15% ofCONS$ T 239
SUBTOTAL$ 2,148
CONTINGENCY -- 25%537$
838%0 TIV 0*
838%0 TIV 7*
Page32of37 665

TRAFFICIMPACTFEEPROGRAM - FINAL
2); 0341)28 86-4 2)6%8-32
Exisiting Units AnnualAverage Daily ExistingAnnualAverage LandUse( 2014) TripsPerUnitDaily Trips
Residential (DU)
SingleFamily 4,9659.6 47,664
Multi-family 2576.7 1,722
MobileHome 849 5 4,245
Existing Residential Subtotal 6,071 53,631
Non-residential (KSF)
Office 3011 330
Commercial/Retail 45043 19,350
Industrial/Warehouse 5,081 5 25,405
Existing Non-Residential Subtotal 5,561 45,085
ExistingAverageAnnualDailyTrips 98,716
NewDevelopment AnnualAverage Daily NewDevelopment Annual LandUse( 2014-2035) TripsperUnitAverage DailyTrips
Residential (DU)
SingleFamily 1,3009.6 12,480
Multi-family 2,0006.7 13,400
MobileHome - 5-
NewDevelopment Residential Subtotal 3,300 25,880
Non-residential (KSF)
Office 20011 2,200
Commercial/Retail 83443 35,862
Industrial/Warehouse 5,1465 25,730
NewDevelopment Non-Residential Subtotal 6,180 63,792
NewDevelopment AverageAnnualDailyTrips 89,672
Cummulative AnnualAverage DailyCummulative AnnualAverage LandUse( 2035) TripsperUnitDailyTrips
Residential (DU)
SingleFamily 6,2659.6 60,144
Multi-family 2,2576.7 15,122
MobileHome 849 5 4,245
Cummulative Residential Subtotal 9,371 79,511
Non-residential (KSF)
Office 23011 2,530
Commercial/Retail 1,28443 55,212
Industrial/Warehouse 10,227 5 51,135
Cummulative Non-Residential Subtotal 11,741 108,877
Cummulative AverageAnnualDailyTrips 188,388
Page33of37 666

TRAFFIC IMPACT FEEPROGRAM - FINAL
76 463.)'8 378 003'%8-32
EGMPMX]( IWGVMTXMSR SJ QTVSZIQIRX8-* 8-* Other (%)Other ($) MX] 0MQMX XS QIVMGER ER]SR 6-laneModified Boulevard (Segment 2) 87%$5,814,020 6SEH MQFIVP] VMZI RXIVWIGXMSR Prohibit EBLmovement87%$ 87,000 Add2ndexcl.WBR & EBL63%$398,35837%$ 235,853 QIVMGER ER]SR 6SEH 6-lane Modified Boulevard16%$314,48484%$1,651,040 RXIVWIGXMSR Traffic signal modification39%$39,40661%$ 60,594 7YFXSXEP 72%$1,947,487
QIVMGER ER]SR 6SEH XS 6-laneModified Boulevard (Segment 3.1)16% 84%$1,816,144 SREPHWSR E] VE[JSVH E] RXIVWIGXMSR Prohibit EBLmovement84%$ 84,000
Add2ndexcl. EBL & excl. EBR60%$382,22940%$ 251,982
Add2ndexcl. WBL andmodify excl. WBR52%$332,78848%$ 301,423 SREPHWSR E] RXIVWIGXMSR Addexcl. NBR & SBR18%$55,03582%$ 250,714 6-lane Modified Boulevard18%$353,79482%$1,611,730
Traffic signal relocation37%$74,37163%$ 125,629
7YFXSXEP 68%$2,541,477
SREPHWSR E] XS 4SGS 6-laneModified Boulevard (Segment 3.2) 82%$1,853,489 E] 7SYXL 2ETE YRGXMSR Addexcl. dualEBL andsingle EBR76%$483,89524%$ 150,316
Addexcl. dualWBL andsingle WBR lane98%$622,8042%$ 11,407 4SGS E] 7SYXL 2ETE YRGXMSR Addexcl. NBR & SBR13%$39,74787%$ 266,001 RXIVWIGXMSR 6-lane Modified Boulevard13%$255,51887%$1,710,006 Newtraffic signal50%$150,37550%$ 149,625
7YFXSXEP 60%$2,287,355
4SGS E] 7S 2ETE YRGXMSR XS 6-laneModified Boulevard (Segment 3.3) 82%$ 805,865 YGEP]TXYW V Addsingle EBT, excl. dualEBLand excl. single 77%$730,72123%$ 220,595 EBR Remove RioDelMartraffic signal and prohibt 18%$ 9,00082%$ 41,000 YGEP]TXYW VMZI RXIVWIGXMSR EBL Addexcl. NBR, NBL & SBR13%$59,62187%$ 399,001
6-lane Modified Boulevard13%$255,51887%$1,710,006
Traffic signal modification30%$60,40670%$ 139,594
7YFXSXEP 69%$2,510,197
YGEP]TXYW VMZI XS 2ETE 6-laneModified Boulevard (Segment 3.4) 87%$ 557,335 YRGXMSR 6SEH Phase 1Improvements100%$ 1,423,0000%$ 0
Add2ndexcl. WBL andexcl. WBR71%$452,27929%$ 181,932
2ETE YRGXMSR 6SEH RXIVWIGXMSR Add2ndexcl. EBL andexcl. EBR44%$276,40556%$ 357,806 6-lane Modified Boulevard13%$255,51887%$1,710,006
Traffic signal relocation43%$85,26457%$ 114,736
7YFXSXEP 49%$2,364,480
2ETE YRGXMSR 6SEH XS VIIR 6-laneModified Boulevard (Segment 4.1)13%$715,45187%$4,788,016 WPERH 6SEH 2I[IPP XIRWMSR Paoli LoopOvercrossing Structure13%$1,622,40087%$10,857,600 7YFXSXEP 87%$15,645,616
VIIR WPERH 6H 2I[IPP Lengthen NBandSBacceleration lanes13%$39,74787%$ 266,001 XIRWMSR RXIVWIGXMSR 6-lane Modified Boulevard13%$255,51887%$1,710,006 7YFXSXEP 87%$1,976,007
VIIR WPERH 6H 2I[IPP X XS 6-laneModified Boulevard (Segment 4.2) 87%$6,840,024 7S IPP] 6SEH STATE ROUTE 29PROJECTS21% 12,676,460
Page34of37 667

TRAFFIC IMPACT FEEPROGRAM - FINAL
03'%0 463.)'8 378 003'%8-32
EGMPMX]( IWGVMTXMSR SJ QTVSZIQIRX8-* 8-* Other (%)Other ($) Widen road from SR29toCommerce Blvd. to 100%$3,198,1490%$ 0 VIIR WPERH 6SEH Industrial Collector standards
Widen railroad crossing tothree lanes100%$200,0000%$ 0
7YFXSXEP 0%$ 0
Widen road fromGreen Island toNewell 4ESPM 0SST 6SEH 34%$1,972,16266%$3,766,384 Extension Industrial Collector standards New4-lane arterial fromDonaldson Way to 2I[IPP VMZI 83%$4,443,10617%$ 926,294 South Napa Junction Rd Addexcl. NBL & SBR83%$466,52617%$ 97,261
2I[IPP VMZI 7S 2ETE YRGXMSR Addexclusive EBL andEBR98%$395,4622%$ 7,243 RXIVWIGXMSR Newtraffic signal90%$180,95010%$ 19,050 7YFXSXEP 11%$ 123,554
New Major Collector from SR29toextension of 7SYXL 2ETE YRGXMSR 6SEH 2%$ 154,515 Newell Drive New Minor Collector fromEuclayptus toSouth 1EMR 7XVIIX 0%$ 0 Napa Junction
New Industrial Collector from railroad IZPMR 6SEH 7IKQIRX 50%$3,758,580 overcrossing toGreen Island Rd.

Widen to2-lanecollector from Wetlands Edge YGEP]TXYW VMZI 23%$ 871,555 Rd. toSR29 YGEP]TXYW VMZI 8LIVIWE Install roundabout 23%$ 137,515 ZIRYI RXIVWIGXMSR New Industrial Collector fromsouthern terminis SQQIVGI VMZI 0%$ 0 toEucalyptus Drive
Addexcl. NBL & SBL100%$402,7050%$ 0
YGEP]TXYW V SQQIVGI PZH Addexclusive EBL andWBL77%$309,32423%$ 93,381 RXIVWIGXMSR Addnewsign88%$ 4,42012%$ 580 7YFXSXEP 12%$ 93,961
CITYSTREET PROJECTS79%$36,845,509
Page35of37 668
669

TRAFFICIMPACTFEEPROGRAM - FINAL
7911%6=
4VSNIGX SWXW
StateRoute 29 CostEstimate
Southern American Canyon 6,782,782
Central American Canyon 24,907,339
Northern American Canyon 28,116,835
59,806,956
LocalStreets 46,677,867
Bicycle andPedestrian Facilities 12,098,458
4VSNIGX SWX 8SXEP
8-* 4VSKVEQ
Project Cost 118,583,280
OtherFunding Sources $ (69,061,311)
8-*4VSKVEQ 8SXEP

II EPGYPEXMSR
TIFProgram 49,521,970
NewDailyTrips (AADT) 89,672
SWX TIV EMP] 8VMT
EQTPI II 7GLIHYPI
Current FeePerProposed FeeperCurrent FeePerProposed FeeDaily Trips LandUseDaily Trip DailyTripUnitper Unitper Unit
Residential (DU)
SingleFamily$412$552$3,954$5,299 9.6
Multi-family$ 388$ 552$2,600$3,698 6.7
Non-residential (KSF)
Office$ 638$ 552$7,020$6,072 11.0
Commercial/Retail$ 163$ 552$7,020$23,736 43.0
Industrial/Warehouse$ 404$ 552$2,020$2,760 5.0
Page37of37 670
Napa Countywide
Active Transportation Plan
City of American Canyon
Planning Commission
Item 2 – Public Hearing, GP Amendment
May 28, 2026
671
Why a Countywide AT Plan?
2 • Align investments with best practices
• Consistency with state/regional law & policy
– Daylighting, Class IV Bikeways, Sharrows
• Maintain eligibility for funding opportunities
• Collect & Maintain GIS Data on facilities
• Engage public to reflect community needs
• Establish & evaluate progress toward goals
672
Project Timeline
3 Project
Kick-Off
Data
Collection &
Existing
Conditions
Community
&
Stakeholder
Engagement
Recommendations
Development
Plan
Completion
Fall 2024
Winter 2024
Spring 2025 – Winter 2025
Fall 2025
Winter 2026
673
Total Engagement
• Nearly 2,000 interactions
In-Person
• Napa & Calistoga Workshops
• AC Meet Me in the Street – 3x
• ACMS Career Fair – May 2025
• 30+ Partner Events/Presentations
Online Engagement
• Interactive Maps: 463 comments
• Survey: 199 surveys
Community Engagement Summary
4 674
Plan Organization:
• Countywide Goals & Objectives
• Countywide Policy Framework
• Best Practices Toolkit
• Local Plan Chapter (Ch 11)
– Existing conditions
– Facility recommendations
– Implementation Plan & Priorities
Plan Organization and Goals
5 Safety
Equity and Accessibility
Connectivity
Sustainability
Maintenance
Data/Evaluation
Plan Goals:
675
Countywide Policies
• Builds on existing adopted plans,
& leverages best practices
• Utilizes Safe Routes “E’s” framework
– Engineering
– Education & Engagement
– Encouragement
– Evaluation
• Policies serve as a countywide baseline,
with flexibility for local context
Active Transportation Policies (Chapter 5)
6 676
Toolkit Objectives
• Provide simplified, accurate guidance and
context for the most common facilities &
active transportation treatments
– Bike Paths/Lanes/Routes
– Intersection improvements
– Traffic Calming
– Sidewalks
– Maintenance Best Practices
• Serve as a resource for engineers,
planners and community members
Treatment Toolkit (Appendix D)
7 677
Facility Recommendations • Review of prior planning efforts • Vision Zero High Injury Network • Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Avoid high-stress roadways – Lower volume/speeds preferred • Trip origin and destination mapping – Contiguous low
-stress routes
• Community-identified priorities
Needs Assessment 8
678
Needs Assessment
9 Level of Traffic Stress
LTS produces a score for roadways from
1 to 4.

Streets that scored 1 or 2 are less
stressful and comfortable for bicyclists of
most ages and abilities.

Roughly 15% of roadway miles in
American Canyon scored LTS 3 or 4 and
are considered “high stress.”
679
Existing Bicycle Network
10 Jurisdiction
2019
Existing Mileage
2019
Proposed
2019
Total
2025
Existing Mileage
2025
Proposed Mileage
2025
Total
City of Calistoga 6.0 mi 15.0 21.0 6.9 14.1 21.0
City of St. Helena 2.5 25.1 27.6 5.5 23.6 29.1
Town of Yountville 4.2 0.8 5.0 3.5 1.5 5.1
City of Napa 49.0 59.2 108.2 54.2 68.4 122.6
City of American
Canyon 13.1 24.1 37.2 18.8 25.1 43.9
Unincorporated
Napa County 67.5 323.5 391.0 83.8 296.7 380.4
Total 142.3 447.7 590.0 172.7 429.4 602.1
Note: 2025 Existing mileage totals are based on a comprehensive review of all facilities, which in some cases resulted in removal or recategorization of 2019 facility designation. As such, direct comparison between 2019 and 2025 totals for a given jurisdiction may be misleading.

All Bicycle Facilities by Jurisdiction
680
Existing Bicycle Network – American Canyon
11 681
Draft Bicycle Network
12 Note: Existing mileage totals are derived from a comprehensive review of existing bicycle facilities, which in some cases resulted in removal or re-categorization of facilities. Rows/Columns may not sum due to rounding.
682
Bicycle Project Prioritization & Benefits
13 683
Pedestrian Network Gap Closures
14 Methodology
• Existing Data Collection
– Countywide Sidewalks &
Crosswalks
• Identify Key Destinations
– Transit Stops, Schools, Parks,
Retail, Medical
• Network Gap Analysis
– Within 500’ of Key Destinations
and major corridors
– Complete one side of corridor vs
alternating patchwork
684
Pedestrian Network Recommendations
15 Sidewalk gap closure projects were proposed if
they met the following criteria:
• Within 500 feet of a point of interest,
including parks, schools, transit stops, etc.
• The gap is located along a corridor with an
existing or proposed bicycle improvement.

In addition to the methodology described above,
a manual review was conducted to add or
exclude projects where necessary.
685
Thank you.

Questions?
16 For more information, visit
https://napaatplan.org/
686

NVTA PROJECT UPDATE
AMERICAN CANYON SR-29

CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
• February 3, 2026
• Grant Bailey, P.E.
• Program Manager - Engineer
687
2 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Purpose of Today’s Update • Status of Environmental Phase of Work • Traffic modeling and existing conditions Critical Milestone: Intersection Safety &
Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP)
completed December 2025
• Informs environmental and engineering
studies
• Target phase completion - December
2026
• Alternatives Evaluation • Initial Findings from Intersection Safety & Operational Assessment Process
(ISOAP) Analysis
• Led to more robust alternative
evaluation
• Additional Engagement • Presented this information to NVTA Board of Directors on January 21, 2026
688
3 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Project Purpose & Need
• Purpose
• Improve mobility for all modes
• Improve safety
• Improve transit travel time & reliability
• Support residential and commercial
development
• Need
• Corridor currently lacks:
• Multimodal connectivity
• Public transit facilities
• Low level-of-traffic stress routing options
• Intersection constrains lead to extensive
queuing & delays
• Number of collisions on the corridor exceeds
state average for similar facilities
689
4 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Project Alternatives
• No Build Alternative
• Conditions remain as-is
• Alternative 1:
• Signalization improvements and coordination
throughout corridor
• Business access and transit (BAT) lanes
• Transit priority/queue jump
• Alternative 2:
• Multilane roundabouts at six intersections
• American Canyon Rd will remain
signalized
• Work Common to Both Alternatives:
• Construct physically separated Class I shared
use path
• Lower speed limit from 50 MPH to 35 MPH
• Construct 4 bus stops or bus islands
• Construct mobility hub
• Reconfigure intersections to improve
pedestrian crossings
690
5 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Alternative #1 Advantages
• Traffic Operations & Intersection Level of Service
• Alternative 1 offers improved LOS
• Transit Reliability
• Business Access and Transit (BAT) Lanes
• Queue Jump Lanes
• ROW
• Limited property acquisitions and driveway
impacts
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
• No increase in VMT
• Alternative #1 Supports:
• Transit reliability
• Emergency response times
• Limited ROW impacts
• Improved mobility for all modes (including
bikes/pedestrians)
691
6 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Alternative #2 Advantages
• Injury collision reduction potential
• Alternative 2 carries higher crash reduction
potential
• Local/public preference
• General sentiment from public workshop was
a preference for roundabouts
• Roundabout carry a public perception of
improved traffic flow
• Alternative #2 Supports
• Potentially reduced incidence of collision
• Improved mobility for all modes (including
bikes/pedestrians)
692
7 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Signalization Improvements
• Additional Signals
• Crawford Wy
• Poco Wy / S Napa Junction
• Side Street Improvements
• Additional Turning Lanes
• New Crosswalks across SR 29
• Signal Coordination
• Adaptative Signal Coordination
• Driven by actual vehicle volumes
• Why?
• Minimize side street delays and accommodate
future land use growth
• Regulate N-S vehicle throughput
• Transit Queue Jumps and Transit Signal Priority at
all signalized Intersections
• Easier and safer pedestrian crossings 693
8 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Business Access & Transit Lanes
Benefits:
• Transit
• Efficiently and reliably move transit vehicles through the corridor
• Couple with intersection queue jumps and transit signal priority (TSP) technology
• Local Access
• Acceleration/deceleration lane for commercial &
residential facilities along the corridor
• Improves operations between intersections
• Limits impacts to and consolidation of existing driveways • Standard Shoulder
• Accommodates vehicle breakdowns
• Enforcement
• Technology driven
• Signal-mounted enforcement cameras
• Potential for bus-mounted enforcement cameras
694
9 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Intersection Operation Evaluation Results
Intersection Level of Service (LOS)
Alternative 1 - Signals Alternative 2 - Roundabouts
Level of Service Existing Conditions
2025 AM (PM)
Opening Year 2030

AM (PM)
Design Year
2050 AM (PM)
Opening Year
2030 AM (PM)
Design Year
2050 AM (PM)
During Peak Period
Crawford Way B(F) C (B) B (B) B (C) C (E)
Donaldson Way C(C) C (C) C (D) F (E) F (F)
Poco Way/S Napa
Junction Rd E(D) A (D) A (F) F (C) F (E)
Rio Del Mar C(B) C (D) E (D) F (D) F (F)
Eucalyptus Dr B(B) A (C) E (E) F (E) F (F)
Napa Junction Rd D(E) D (C) D (D) F (E) F (F)
LOS Key
Average Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
Signalized Unsignalized
Acceptable
LOS
A-B-C Acceptable 0-25 0-25
D At Capacity 35-55 25-35
Unacceptable LOS
E Poor 55-80 35-50
F Failure >80 >50 695
10 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Alternative Evaluation
696
11 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Cost, Right of Way & Delivery
• Costs
• Alt 1: ~$58M (ROW & Construction)
• Alt 2: ~$75M (ROW & Construction)
• ROW
• Alt 1: minimal impacts to public right of way
and private property corners
• Alt 2: major acquisitions, potential structure
demolitions
• Alternative 2 Delivery Risk
• Limited use of three-lane roundabouts in
California
• No examples in the proposed configuration of
multiple consecutive roundabouts
• Potential VMT mitigation could increase costs
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
Alternative 1 - Signals Alternative 2 - Roundabouts
CON - $55 M
CON - $65 M
ROW - $3 M
ROW - $10 M
Cost (Millions. 2025 $)
Cost, ROW & Delivery
Construction ROW
697
12 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Alternative Evaluation Results
Evaluation Criteria Contributing Factors Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Purpose and Need Alternative accomplishes points outlined in the purpose and need of the project. 1 1
Traffic
Better Intersection Level of Service
During Peak Period
1 0
Transit Better improves transit operations 1 0
Bike and Ped Better improves Pedestrian and Bike
Connectivity 0 0
VMT No VMT Increase 1 0
Safety
CMF Qualitative Analysis 0 1
Cost Lower Total Project Cost 1 0
Environmental Less environmental impacts 0 0
Department of Transportation Concerns Caltrans has less concerns related to nonstandard design 1 0
Local Preference Alternative preferred by users and local residents 0 1
City Preference Alternative preferred by City Council & Staff TBD TBD
Local Impacts
Less Temporary construction impacts 0 0
Less Right of Way impacts 1 0
Less Significant Driveway Impacts 1 0
TOTAL 8 3
698
13 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Next Steps
• Staff recommendation
• Carry forward Alternative #1 for
environmental clearance
• Do not carry Alternative #2 forward
• Benefits
• Accelerates phase completion to the end of
2026
• Limits use of additional resources to further
evaluate Alternative #2
699
Q&A – Thank you!
700
15 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
LOS Table with No Build Conditions
Expanded Intersection Level of Service (LOS)
No Build Alternative Alternative 1 - Signals Alternative 2 - Roundabouts Level of Service Existing Conditions
2025 AM (PM)
Opening Year 2030

AM (PM)
Design Year 2050

AM (PM)
Opening Year
2030 AM (PM)
Design Year
2050 AM (PM)
Opening Year
2030 AM (PM)
Design Year 2050

AM (PM)
During Peak Period
Crawford Way B(F) F(F) F(E) C (B) B (B) B (C) C (E)
Donaldson Way C(C) D(C) F(D) C (C) C (D) F (E) F (F)
Poco Way/S Napa
Junction Rd E(D) F(E) F(F) A (D) A (F) F (C) F (E)
Rio Del Mar C(B) D(C) F(F) C (D) E (D) F (D) F (F)
Eucalyptus Dr B(B) B(B) F(F) A (C) E (E) F (E) F (F)
Napa Junction Rd D(E) D(F) F(F) D (C) D (D) F (E) F (F) LOS Key
Average Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
Signalized Unsignalized
Acceptable
LOS
A-B-C Acceptable 0-25 0-25
D At Capacity 35-55 25-35
Unacceptable LOS
E Poor 55-80 35-50
F Failure >80 >50
701
16 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Solano Napa Area Base Model (SNABM)
Sub-Area Mode
(Focus on Project Study Area)
Traffic Modeling Methodology
• Regional Model Covers All Counties.
• Focused on Solano and Napa Counties
• Project specific Sub-Area to capture major
changes in land use and traffic circulation.
• Model also includes the City of American
Canyon General Plan changes and growth
projections.
• i.e. Watson Ranch Development
• Developed regional and local volumes.
702

CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Council
Meeting
Date:
06/02/2026 Submitted
by: *
Councilmember David Oro
Event
Date:
25/05/2026 Event Type Community Event
Event Title: Memorial Day Ceremony
Event Report: Attended the Memorial Day Ceremony at Veterans Park and had the opportunity to hear the stories and wisdom shared by keynote speaker and American Canyon resident Albert Matel. Mr. Matel served in the U.S. Army as a military police officer and later as a recruiter.

Appreciate the staff who organized this event. It is always a well-run ceremony that appropriately honors our service members. Its simplicity and sincerity continue to make it a meaningful way to remember and reflect.

Upload File or Picture (20

MB MAX)
703

CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Council
Meeting
Date:
06/02/2026 Submitted
by: *
Vice Mayor Mark Joseph
Event
Date:
14/05/2026 Event Type Committee Report
Event Title: City/NVUSD Meeting
Event Report: We discussed enrollment trends and general school finances. Creating the TK (Transitional Kindergarten) program actually helps enrollment numbers, as well as a better learning experience for the child. It also offers some help in terms of child care. That helps offset the overall declining enrollment.

We also discussed Vallejo Unified School District's efforts to address their financial challenges. Specifically, they are trying to close the door on inter-district transfers. As this is implemented, it will negatively impact our campuses, because most of the transfers were to American Canyon schools.

On School capital projects, they are finishing the use of Measure A2 funds this summer, and most of our schools are in good shape. When asked about potential tax measures for the 2028 election, they acknowledged they could use the funding, but would be driven more by voter sentiment--at least in the short term.

They are working on a number of projects during the summer, mostly relating to solar panels, parking and play areas. Some schools are getting more projects done than others, mostly in Napa.

We also discussed the ongoing Charter School issue. Although they basically prevailed at the District level and the Mayacamas Charter, the Charter got around this by reinventing itself as a Countywide Charter.

NVUSD took them to court, but the Charter school won. The District is assessing whether to appeal the decision.

Lastly, we talked about career readiness and their participation in Career Fairs.

Upload File or Picture (20

MB MAX)
Event
Date:
14/05/2026 Event Type Committee Report
Event Title: Napa County League of Governments (NCLOG) Meeting Event Report: We met at the Calistoga Fairgrounds, which was the first time I was there. You can tell it will have great potential, but it will take time to fully implement.

The main topic was the potential Fire/Open Space Sales Tax initiative. We heard clarification of eligible projects and how each jurisdiction could access the funds. The only concern I have is their governance structure. The Oversight Board is selected by the County and City representation is not guaranteed (it's more focused on functional areas and not jurisdictions). Probably not an insurmountable problem, though.

We also had a nice discussion about the number of meetings and what role NCLOG should play. We decided we would stick to 3 meetings/year (and not the 2 that staff proposed), and we would focus more on "big picture" issues that impact all of us. This is personally satisfying to me, since years ago, this was more of a social event, in which we all try to impress each other about how great our community is. And, although American Canyon is better than the other communities, we can better spend our time on addressing problems facing all of us. 704
Upload File or Picture (20

MB MAX)
Event
Date:
20/05/2026 Event Type Committee Report
Event Title: Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) meeting Event Report: We received our quarterly project update--the SR29 Corridor project is moving forward, but our environmental review may slip to the first quarter of 2027. We are currently trying to secure funding for design/right-of-way. If all goes well, we could be ready for construction in 2030 (subject to securing some big ticket grants!) We're also exploring 3 alternatives to the SR12/29 interchange, before we select the best alternative. Other projects are also moving forward.

We established a nominating committee to recommend a new Chair and Vice-Chair--I'm termed out! We adopted our 2-year budget and Overall Work Program for 2026-27 and 2027-28. The only changes from the draft budget: we moved one project forward, due to funding, and added temporary wages to hire someone with Caltrans experience, which will come in handy as we address major Caltrans projects (SR 29 Corridor Project, SR12/29 interchange, etc.). Could also be useful on our own South Kelley/SR29 project.

Approved a new "Unified Call For Projects". This should streamline the process and make it easier for our staff to apply for funding.

We also approved funding for Napa City's 5-way intersection and a new Vine UpValley Link service (think taxi-script for Ubers!) It should offer some help for upvalley seniors and others with mobility problems.

I also attended a portion of the Public Workshop for the SR29 Corridor Study. Good presentation by NVTA staff, and well attended. I haven't heard any feedback yet, but they are looking to make sure the project reflects the interests of our community--to the extent that we can afford it, of course. At least they are reaching out, and that's what counts.

Upload File or Picture (20

MB MAX)
Event
Date:

Event Type Community Event
Event Title: Community Events and Activities
Event Report: ACAF: Attended the Board meeting and reviewed the status of the many projects in the planning stages.

Next up: the Art Extravaganza at RD Winery on Saturday, June 6, and our Juneteenth Festival at Meet Me in the Street, on Wednesday, June 10. Also, for our May "Third Thursdays" we offered a Drum Circle--very cool and well attended. I may get some rhythm yet!
Kiwanis: Attended the General Membership meeting and spent some time discussing how to keep membership dues more affordable, how to attract more new members and bring some fun back into the organization. Also helped with the monthly food distribution--almost 250 people served.

Senior Resource Fair: Attended this free tabled event--as a Senior, I figured I should see what I'm missing! There were over 20 service providers, and a very good turnout. Great snacks, too! Thank you Soroptimists, for putting this on.

Memorial Day Ceremony: Along with all the members of Council, I was there for the ceremony. Always very moving, and something we can all take pride in--even if the weather was on the cold side! PW Luncheon: I showed up a little late and missed the best part of the meal, but it was good to see our Public Works crews get a chance to relax and enjoy a good meal.

Fire District Board Meeting: Most of the discussion was in closed session, but we received a presentation on the importance of CPR and AED Awareness, and a report on vacancies in the District (good news: we only had 2 and they've been filled already!)
Upload File or Picture (20

MB MAX)
705
Future Agenda Items
June 3, 2026, OSATS Meeting 6:30 p.m.

CANCELLED
June 11, 2026, PCS Meeting 6:30 p.m.

CANCELLED
June 16, 2026, City Council. 6:30 p.m.

FY 2026/27 Salary Schedule
June 16, 2026, Special Joint CC/PCS. 6:30 p.m.

Parks and Community Services Master Plan PCS
Submit Local Sales Tax Measure to Nov. Ballot
Work Plan FY26/27
June 16, 2026, Special Joint CC/OSATS 8:00 pm
Active Transportation Plan
OSATS Work Plan FY25/26
June 25, 2026, Planning Comm. 6:30 p.m.

ADU Ordinance Update
July 21, 2026, City Council. 6:30 p.m.

Parks & Recreation Month
Backflow Devices Municipal Code Update
July 21, 2026, Joint CC/Planning. 7:00 p.m.

BDSP Opportunity Blocks and Barriers to
Development
August 4, 2026, City Council 4:00 p.m.
(CONSENT ONLY, NATIONAL NIGHT OUT)
August 5, 2026, OSATS 6:30 p.m.

TBD
August 6, 2026, Finance Subcomm. 1:00 p.m.

TBD
August 13, 2026, PCS 6:30 p.m.

TBD
August 18, 2026, City Council 6:30 p.m.

First Reading Combined Density Bonus,
Inclusionary Ordinance, and ADU Ordinance
Update
Code Enforcement Update
Sites Reservoir Update
Utility Enterprise Financial Update
Urban Water Management Plan
Utility Update
Utility Update – Water and Finance
August 27, 2026, Planning Comm. 6:30 p.m.

TBD
September 1, 2026, City Council 6:30p
Hispanic Heritage Month
Suicide Prevention Month
September 2, 2026, OSATS Meeting. 6:30 p.m.

TBD
September 10, 2026, PCS, 6:30 p.m.

TBD
September 15, 2026, City Council 6:30p
National Community Planning Month
National Recovery Month
NVTA SR29 Multi-Modal Project Local Funding
Commitment
Q1 CIP Update
September 24, 2026, Planning Comm. 6:30pm
TBD
October 6, 2026, City Council 6:30p
Domestic Violence Awareness Month
Filipino American Heritage Month
Q2 CIP Update
Unscheduled Council Directed Items
Item Councilmember Date of Vote Notes
Food Ware Ordinance Joseph 9/17/2024 On hold, pending RCAAP Purple Heart Designation Washington 10/15/2024 In progress, Council date TBD 706

American Canyon City CouncilJune 2, 2026

American Canyon City Council
June 2, 2026