REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
City Hall - Council Chambers
4381 Broadway St., Suite 201, American Canyon
September 15, 2026
6:30 PM
1. Ma"ers Rela%ng to Public Employment: Public Employee Performance Evalua%ons (pursuant to Gov. Code section 54957)
Positions: Jason Holley, City Manager
Mayor: Pierre Washington
Vice Mayor: Mayor Mark Joseph
Councilmembers: Brando Cruz, Melissa Lamattina, David Oro 4:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION
The mayor will call the meeng to order and conduct roll call. Following public comment on Closed Session items, the Council will immediately convene in Closed Session.
CALL TO ORDER - CLOSED SESSION
ROLL CALL - CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENT - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
This me is reserved for members of the public to address the City Council on Closed Session Business items only. Oral comments must be made in person and are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.
MEETING RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION
The Council will reconvene in Open Session at 6:30 p.m. The Council may reconvene in Closed Session at the conclusion of the meeting, if necessary, to address any remaining items.
BUSINESS - CLOSED SESSION
6:30 P.M. OPEN SESSION
CALL TO ORDER - OPEN SESSION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL - OPEN SESSION
CLOSED SESSION REPORT OUT / CONFIRMATION OF REPORTABLE ACTION
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
1 2. Proclamation: National Community Planning Month 2026
3. City Council Minutes of September 1, 2026
Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the Regular City Council mee5ng held September1, 2026.
4. Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study and Fee Program Update Agreement Recommendation: Adopt a Resolu5on authorizing a $156,000 budget increase in the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Fund 320 and authorizing an agreement with Fehr & Peers in an amount not to exceed $156,000 to prepare a comprehensive update of American Canyon’s transporta5on impact fee program, including the impact fee nexus study, capital improvement project list, and fee schedules.
5. Approve an Addendum to the Cer%fied General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) (SCH No. 2022070038) and Conduct Final Reading and Adop%on of the Hess/Laird Territory Special Study Pre-Zoning Ordinance Recommendation: Waive final reading, read by 5tle only, and adopt an Ordinance to approve Special Study Pre-Zoning for the Hess/Laird Territory consistent with the General Plan (American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 19.50) and approve an Addendum to the Cer5fied General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, finding the Ordinance consistent with the General Plan Program EIR.
6. 2026 Biennial City Conflict of Interest Code
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolu5on approving the 2026 Conflict of Interest Code as amended, authorizing future updates by Resolu5on, and a uthorizing the City Clerk to complete and file the 2026 Local Biennial Notice.
7. Approve an exemp%on from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and conduct Final Reading and Adop%on of the Accessory Animal Husbandry and Livestock Keeping Regulations Zoning Code Amendment Recommendation: Waive final reading, read by 5tle only, and adopt an Ordinance to amend American Canyon Municipal Code Sec5ons 19.05.090, 19.05.100, 19.10.040, and 19.31.020 to remove the prohibi5on on swine, limit livestock keeping to the Residen5al Estate (RE) Zoning district, and remove obsolete General Plan policy references.
PUBLIC COMMENT - ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
This me is reserved for members of the public to address the City Council on items not appearing on the agenda that are within the Council's jurisdicon. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the City Council is generally prohibited from discussing or taking action on items not listed on the agenda.
AGENDA CHANGES
The City Council may change the order of the agenda or request discussion of an item on the Consent Calendar. Members of the public may request discussion of a Consent Calendar item during Public Comment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
2 8. Approve an exemp%on from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and conduct Final Reading and Adopt the Accessory Dwelling Unit, Density Bonus, and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Update Recommendation: Waive final reading, read by 5tle only, and adopt an Ordinance to amend the American Canyon Municipal Code to update Chapter 19.27 (Density Bonus), Chapter
19.28 (Inclusionary Housing), and Chapter 19.39 (Accessory Dwelling Units) consistent with current State laws and Housing Element Implementation Measures.
9. Open Gov Budge%ng, Financial Repor%ng, and Transparency PlaEorm SoFware Agreement
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolu5on to enter into an agreement with OpenGov for budgeting and transparency software solution.
10. Approval of a Five-Year Agreement with Govinity, Inc. for Legisla%ve and Public Mee%ng Management Software Services.
Recommendation: Adopt a resolu5on approving a five-year agreement with Govinity, Inc. for legisla5ve and public mee5ng management soGware services in an amount not to exceed $182,500 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.
11. Water Treatment Plant Filter Media Replacement and Underdrain Repair Project (WA23- 0200)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolu5on: 1) Amending the FY2026-27 Capital Budget and increasing the WA23-0200 project budget from $350,000 to $600,000; 2) awarding a Construc5on Agreement to ERS Industrial, Inc. in the amount of $492,800; and 3) authorizing the City Manager to approve and execute contract change orders in an amount not to exceed the $600,000 project budget, in conjunc5on with the Water Treatment Plant Filter Media Replacement and Underdrain Repair Project (WA23-0200).
12. Melvin Road Pavement and Sewer Improvements
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolu5on amending the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Budget from $115,000 to $175,000 for the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilita5on Project (TR27- 0100) and authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Coastland | DCCM for an amount not to exceed $194,446 for design services for the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilita5on Project (TR27-0100) and Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project (WW27- 0400).
13. Support and Funding Commitment for State Route 29 Corridor Improvement Project Recommendation: Adopt a Resolu5on suppor5ng the American Canyon State Route 29 Corridor Improvement Project and commiLng up to $5,000,000 in funding for future project phases.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There are no Public Hearing items.
BUSINESS
MANAGEMENT / STAFF ORAL REPORTS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
3 14. City Council Committee Report - Mayor Pierre Washington
15. Future Agenda Items of Note
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS / COMMITTEE REPORTS
City Council may provide brief comments on ma-ers of public concern, announce ma-ers of public interest, and provide Council Committee reports. No action will be taken.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REVIEW
The City Council will review upcoming agenda items. Councilmembers may request that items be added to future City Council agendas.
ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATION
I, Taresa Geilfuss, City Clerk for American Canyon, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda was posted in compliance with the Brown Act prior to the meeting date.
Taresa Geilfuss, City Clerk
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
This mee%ng is a limited public forum. The City expects respecEul conduct from all par%cipants.
Offensive language or discriminatory remarks based on any protected classifica%on under federal, state, or local law will not be tolerated, and the speaker may be immediately disconnected.
Mee5ngs are conducted in person and are also available via Zoom. Mee5ngs are broadcast live on Napa Valley TV, the City’s website, and YouTube.
Zoom Link: Click here. Webinar ID: 847 1017 1711. Passcode: 123456. Phone-in: (408) 638-0968 Oral Comments: In person during Open/Closed Session, or via Zoom during Open Session only. Use “Raise Your Hand” during public comment periods only.
Written Comments: Submit via eComments on the City’s Mee5ngs & Agendas webpage. eComments close at 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.
Agenda Materials: Posted 72 hours in advance at www.americancanyon.gov.
ADA: Requests for accommoda5ons or alterna5ve formats must be submiQed at least three calendar days in advance to the City Clerk at 4381 Broadway, Suite 201, American Canyon, CA 94503 or [email protected].
Need Addi%onal Assistance? Contact the City Clerk by phone at (707) 647-4369 or by email at [email protected].
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
4 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
PROCLAMATION
NATIONAL COMMUNITY PLANNING MONTH - OCTOBER 2026
WHEREAS, communities across the nation, including the City of American Canyon, must adapt to change; and
WHEREAS, community planning provides a framework to shape positive changes and informed choices about how we live, work, and enjoy life; and
WHEREAS, proactive decision-making helps decision-makers anticipate and overcome challenges; and WHEREAS, the planning process helps reconcile diverse, and sometimes competing perspectives from all our residents and business community; and
WHEREAS, community planning furthers economic development by guiding long-term infrastructure and public service needs; and
WHEREAS, planning helps communities adapt and thrive in the face of environmental changes; and WHEREAS, community planning helps to align local government policies and actions with long-term goals; and
WHEREAS, the American Planning Association designates October as National Community Planning Month to recognize and celebrate the contributions of sound planning across the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mayor Pierre Washington, along with the City Council of American Canyon, do hereby proclaim October 2026 as Community Planning Month in the City of American Canyon.
Dated: September 15, 2026
__________________________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
5 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ACTION MINUTES
September 1, 2026
AMENDED AGENDA
5:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION
CALL TO ORDER - CLOSED SESSION
The City Council meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL - CLOSED SESSION
Present: Councilmember Brando Cruz, Councilmember Melissa Lamattina, Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, Mayor Pierre Washington
Absent: None
PUBLIC COMMENT - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Mayor Washington opened a public comment period for Closed Session Items. Written comments: none. Oral comments: none. The public comment period was closed.
MEETING RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION
BUSINESS - CLOSED SESSION
1. Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Authorized Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8Property: 4000 Paoli Loop Rd (APN 057-090-065). Agency negotiator:
Jason Holley, City Manager. Under negotiation: Price and terms of property acquisition.
2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation. Authorized pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): City of American Canyon v. Timothy Shea (Napa County Superior Court Case No. 20CVB)
6:30 P.M. OPEN SESSION
CALL TO ORDER - OPEN SESSION
The City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. 6 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
ROLL CALL - OPEN SESSION
Present: Councilmember Brando Cruz, Councilmember Melissa Lamattina, Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, Mayor Pierre Washington
Excused: Councilmember David Oro
CLOSED SESSION REPORT OUT / CONFIRMATION OF REPORTABLE ACTION A report on Closed Session and confirmation of reportable action was given by City Attorney Matthew Summers.
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
3. Proclamation: Hispanic Heritage Month
Mayor Washington announced the Hispanic Heritage Month proclamation. It was received by Karina Ceravantes.
4. Proclamation: Suicide Prevention Month
Mayor Washington announced the Suicide Prevention Month proclamation. It was received by John Bennett on behalf of Mentis.
6. America Canyon Library Update
Council received an American Canyon Library Update and presentation from Elizabeth Goff.
PUBLIC COMMENT - ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Mayor Washington opened a public comment period. Yvonne Baginski was called to speak; Sindy Biederman was called to speak; Justin Hamilton Hole was called to speak. The public comment period was closed.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were no changes to the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Action: Motion to adopt the CONSENT CALENDAR made by Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, seconded by Councilmember Melissa Lamattina, and CARRIED by roll call vote.
Yea: Councilmember Brando Cruz, Councilmember Melissa Lamattina, Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, Mayor Pierre Washington
Nay: None
7 Abstain: None
Excused: Councilmember David Oro
7. City Council Minutes of August 18, 2026
Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on August 18, 2026.
8. Second Reading and Adoption of the Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control Ordinance
Action: Waived final reading, read by title only, and introduced Ordinance 2026-01 adding Chapter 13.08 to Title 13 of the American Canyon Municipal Code relating to Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control; amending Chapter 13.04 relating to water service systems; amending Chapter 13.06 relating to water rates and connection fees; amending Section
16.14.080 relating to water efficient landscaping; amending Section 19.51.060 relating to standard conditions of approval; amending Title 14 relating to sewer and sanitation services; and amending Title 1 relating to general provisions.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. Hess/Laird Territory Special Study Pre-Zoning
Council received a Hess/Laird Territory Special Study Pre-Zoning staff report and presentation from Community Development Director Brent Coopeer. Mayor Washington opened the public hearing and a public comment period. Written comments: Yvonne Baginski, Susan Burns Cochran, Esq. Oral comments: Yvonne Baginski was called to speak; Leon Garcia was called to speak; Jeannete Goyche was called to speak; Travis McDowell was called to speak; Justin Hamilton Hole was called to speak. The public comment period and public hearing were closed.
Action: Motion to waive first reading, read by title only, and introduce Ordinance 2026-02 to approve Special Study Pre-Zoning for the Hess/Laird Territory consistent with the General Plan (American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 19.50) made by Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, seconded by Councilmember Brando Cruz, and CARRIED by roll call vote.
Yea: Councilmember Brando Cruz, Councilmember Melissa Lamattina, Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, Mayor Pierre Washington
Nay: None
Abstain: None
Excused: Councilmember David Oro
10. Accessory Dwelling Unit, Density Bonus, and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Update Council received an Accessory Dwelling Unit, Density Bonus, and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Update and presentation from Community Development Director Brent Cooper. Mayor Washington opened the public hearing and a public comment period. Written comments: none.
Oral comments: Travis McDowell was called to speak; Sindy Biederman was called to speak; Justin Hamilton Hole was called to speak. The public comment period and public hearing were closed. 8 Action: Motion to waive first reading, read by title only, and introduce Ordinance 2026-03 to amend the American Canyon Municipal Code to update Chapter 19.27 (Density Bonus), Chapter 19.28 (Inclusionary Housing), and Chapter 19.39 (Accessory Dwelling Units) consistent with current State laws and Housing Element Implementation Measures made by Councilmember Brando Cruz, seconded by Councilmember Melissa Lamattina, and CARRIED by roll call vote.
Yea: Councilmember Brando Cruz, Councilmember Melissa Lamattina, Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, Mayor Pierre Washington
Nay: None
Abstain: None
Excused: Councilmember David Oro
11. Accessory Animal Husbandry and Livestock Keeping Regulations Zoning Code Amendment Council received an Accessory Animal Husbandry and Livestock Keeping Regulations Zoning Code Amendment staff report and presentation from Community Development Director Brent Cooper.
Mayor Washington opened the public hearing and a public comment period. Written comments:
none. Oral comments: Sam J. Clerici was called to speak; Justin Hamilton Hole was called to speak.
The public comment period and public hearing were closed.
Action: Motion to waive first reading, read by title only, and introduce Ordinance 2026-04 to amend American Canyon Municipal Code Sections 19.05.090, 19.05.100, 19.10.040, and
19.31.020 to remove the prohibition on swine, limit livestock keeping to the Residential Estate (RE) Zoning district, and remove obsolete General Plan policy references made by Councilmember Brando Cruz, seconded by Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, and CARRIED by roll call vote.
Yea: Councilmember Brando Cruz, Councilmember Melissa Lamattina, Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, Mayor Pierre Washington
Nay: None
Abstain: None
Excused: Councilmember David Oro
BUSINESS
12. Napa Olympia Rent Stabilization Mediation Budget Amendment Council received a Napa Olympia Rent Stabilization Mediation Budget Amendment staff report and presentation from Community Development Director Brent Cooper. Mayor Washington opened a public comment period. Written comments: none. Oral comments: Tani K Murray was called to speak; Travis McDowell was called to speak; Sindy Biederman was called to speak; Claudia Sanchez was called to speak. The public comment period was closed.
Action: Motion to adopt Resolution 2026-67 increasing the Community Development Housing Division Contract Services Budget by $80,000 from $28,600 to $108,600 to fund 9 Mediation Services related to the Napa Olympia Mobilodge Rent stabilization matter made by Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, seconded by Councilmember Melissa Lamattina, and CARRIED by roll call vote.
Yea: Councilmember Brando Cruz, Councilmember Melissa Lamattina, Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, Mayor Pierre Washington
Nay: None
Abstain: None
Excused: Councilmember David Oro
MANAGEMENT / STAFF ORAL REPORTS
Council received oral updates from Deputy City Manager Alexandra Ikeda.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS / COMMITTEE REPORTS
The mayor and council members provided oral reports and announced items of community interest.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REVIEW
Future agenda items were reviewed.
13. Future Agenda Items of Note
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
CERTIFICATION
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________________
Nicolle Hall, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
10 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
STAFF REPORT
BUSINESS
ITEM NUMBER: 4.
TITLE
Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study and Fee Program Update Agreement
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolu+on authorizing a $156,000 budget increase in the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Fund 320 and authorizing an agreement with Fehr & Peers in an amount not to exceed $156,000 to prepare a comprehensive update of American Canyon’s transporta+on impact fee program, including the impact fee nexus study, capital improvement project list, and fee schedules.
CONTACT
Erica Ahmann Smithies, P.E., Public Works Director
Noni Thomas, Management Analyst
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
Currently American Canyon imposes development impact fees to fund transporta+on improvements needed to serve new development and maintenance on exis+ng infrastructure and facili+es.
Comple+ng a nexus study to update the fee program ensures that fees remain propor+onate to development impacts, are aligned with American Canyon’s General Plan, Mobility Element, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) policies, and housing produc+on goals, and can be implemented efficiently by City staff.
On June 10, 2026 staff issued a request for proposals on the City's procurement portal, OpenGov to obtain a firm to prepare a comprehensive update to American Canyon’s traffic / transporta+on impact fee program, including prepara+on of an impact fee nexus study, updated capital improvement project list, fee schedule, implementa+on recommenda+ons, and related administra+ve procedures. From that request, three firms submiDed proposals and of the three, Fehr & Peers submiDed the most responsive and responsible proposal. The firm has a proven track record of successful collaboration with the City on prior initiatives.
Staff recommends entering into an agreement for Fehr & Peers to complete the transporta+on impact fee nexus study and fee program update in an amount not to exceed $156,000 over a one year period.
11 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Transporta+on: "Improve the transporta+on network within the City to alleviate conges+on and enhance the quality of life for the community."
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds for this item was not included in the Fiscal Year 26/27 Public Works budget. Approval of this recommended ac+on will approve the proposed agreement and authorize a budget increase in the amount of $156,000 from the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) fund 320-50-650-42160 for the expenditure.
The current available fund balance of the TIF fund is approximately $5.3M, of that, $4.969M is commiDed to TR26-0200 for the Rio Del Mar extension, leaving a balance of $180,000 prior to anticipated revenues.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
15378(b) - The ac+on is not a "Project" subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because it does not qualify as a "Project" under Public Resources Code Sec+ons 21065 and 21080 and in Section 15378(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
COMMUNICATION
Level 1: Minimal Communication
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Fehr & Peers.pdf
2. RFP Transportation Nexus Fee Study.pdf
3. F&P Proposal.pdf
12 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A $156,000 BUDGET INCREASE IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE (TIF) FUND 320, AND AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH FEHR & PEERS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $156,000 TO PREPARE A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF AMERICAN CANYON’S TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEE PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
LIST, AND FEE SCHEDULES
WHEREAS, currently development impact fees are imposed to fund transportation improvements needed to serve new developments and maintenance on existing infrastructure and facilities; and WHEREAS, there is a need to complete a nexus study to update the fee program to ensure that the fees remain proportionate to development impacts, are aligned with the city’s General Plan, Mobility Element, Capital Improvement Program, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) policies, and housing production goals; and WHEREAS, the city posted a request for proposals in June 2026 on the OpenGov procurement portal, three proposals were received; and
WHEREAS, Fehr & Peers was the most responsive and responsible proposer; and WHEREAS, the funding was not previously budgeted within the City Engineer budget ; and WHEREAS, authorizing a budget increase in the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Fund 320, that has a current fund balance of approximately $5.3M; of that $4.969M is committed to TR26-0200 – Rio Del Mar extension, leaving a balance of $180,000 prior to anticipated revenues; and WHEREAS, the action authorized by this Resolution is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b), because it consists of organizational, administrative, and fiscal activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes a $156,000 budget increase in the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Fund 320, and authorizes an agreement with Fehr & Peers in an amount not to exceed $156,000 to prepare a comprehensive update of American Canyon’s transportation impact fee program, including the impact fee nexus study, capital improvement project list, and fee schedules.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon held on the 15th day of September, 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
13 2
ATTEST: APPROVE AS TO FORM:
____________________________ _____________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk Matthew T. Summers, City Attorney 14 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY AND FEE PROGRAM
UPDATE
PROJECT NUMBER TBD
DATE ISSUED: June 10, 2026
RFP OPENING DATE: July 15, 2026
RFP OPENING TIME: 5:00 pm
15 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY AND FEE
PROGRAM UPDATE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Description of the Government
3. Scope of Work
4. Proposal Requirements
5. General Information
6. Terms and Conditions
7. Evaluation Criteria
8. Consultant Selection and Contract Award
9. Standard Contract Information
10.Proposer Questionnaire
Attachments:
A - American Canyon Professional Services Agreement Template - 2026 16 3
1. Introduction
1.1. Summary
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The City of American Canyon is soliciting proposals from qualified firms or individuals ("Proposer") to prepare a comprehensive update to American Canyon’s traffic / transportation impact fee program, including preparation of an impact fee nexus study, updated capital improvement project list, fee schedule, implementation recommendations, and related administrative procedures.
After recently updating its new General Plan, American Canyon’s objective is to modernize its existing AB 1600 traffic impact fee program into a legally defensible, transparent, and administratively practical transportation impact fee program that reflects current California law, including the Mitigation Fee Act, AB 602, SB 743 / VMT requirements, residential fee timing requirements, and best practices for impact fee administration.
More details on the City's needs for this work are provided in the scope of work.
Each qualified Proposer is to submit a proposal in conformity with the terms of this Request for Proposal ("RFP") by the deadline below ("Proposal"). The Proposer selected by the City pursuant to the terms of this RFP and the City's contracting procedures, if any is selected, is referred to herein as "Consultant."
SYNONYMOUS TERMS
Unless the use indicates otherwise, as used throughout this bid and its attachments, the following terms are synonymous:
a. Firm, Consultant, Supplier, Vendor, Contractor, Successful Bidder, Offeror b. Purchase Order, Contract, Agreement
c. Services, Work, Scope, and Project
d. Pricing proposal/sheet, Cost proposal/sheet, Rate table/sheet
1.2. Background
American Canyon currently imposes development impact fees to fund transportation improvements needed to serve new development. American Canyon desires to update the fee program to ensure that fees remain supported by a current nexus study, are proportionate to development impacts, are aligned with American Canyon’s General Plan, Circulation Element, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), VMT policies, and housing production goals, and can be implemented efficiently by City staff.
The selected consultant will work closely with City staff, American Canyon Attorney, and other City consultants as needed. The consultant will be expected to prepare a complete nexus study 17 4
and fee program suitable for public review, Planning Commission and/or City Council consideration, and future implementation.
1.3. Contact Information
Noni Thomas
Management Analyst - Public Works
4381 Broadway Street
American Canyon, CA 94503
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (707) 980-2445
Department:
Public Works
Department Head:
Erica Ahmann Smithies
PW Director
1.4. Timeline
Project Release Date June 10, 2026
Question Submission Deadline July 1, 2026, 1:00pm
Question Response Deadline July 8, 2026, 3:00pm
Response Submission Deadline July 15, 2026, 5:00pm
Consultant Selection Date August 5, 2026
2. Description of the Government
2.1. Description of the Government
The City of American Canyon is located at the southeastern end of Napa County with a population of 21,742. The City's fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30.
The City of American Canyon was incorporated in 1992 as a general law city which operates under a council/manager form of government. The City is located at the southern end of the wine growing region known as the Napa Valley, and is in close proximity to the San Francisco Bay and related wetlands. The city government is divided into five departments: Administration, Public Works, Community Development, Finance, and Parks and Recreation. The City also operates and maintains water, recycled water and wastewater systems. The City also provides contracted transportation services. Law Enforcement and animal control services are provided by Napa County Sheriff's Department. Fire and Paramedic Service is provided by the American Canyon Fire Protection District.
18 5
The City will administer the proposal process in accordance with the terms and dates outlined in this RFP; however, the City reserves the right to modify the activities, timeline, or any other aspect of the process at any time, as deemed necessary. By requesting proposals, the City is in no way obligated to award a contract or pay the expenses of proposer in connection with the preparation or submission of a proposal. The award of any contract shall be contingent on the requisite staff and Council approvals.
3. Scope of Work
3.1. Scope of Work
The following is a list of tasks that are intended to be the responsibility of the (Consultant or Contractor) pursuant to this Request for Proposals ("Scope of Work").
American Canyon expects the selected consultant to perform the following tasks. Proposers may recommend modifications or additional tasks that would improve the final work product.
Project Management and Kickoff
The consultant shall:
• Conduct a kickoff meeting with City staff and American Canyon Attorney. • Confirm project goals, schedule, deliverables, communication protocols, and decision points.
• Prepare a detailed project schedule.
• Identify data needs and assign responsibilities for data collection. • Review existing City documents, including but not limited to:
o Current traffic impact fee program.
o Current fee schedule.
o Prior nexus studies.
o General Plan and Mobility Element.
o Housing Element.
o Specific plans, area plans, and development agreements. o 5-year CIP.
o American Canyon Active Transportation Plan, Complete Streets policies, and VMT policies.
o Recent traffic studies, transportation models, and development projections. o Annual and five-year AB 1600 / Mitigation Fee Act reports. o Development pipeline and approved-but-unbuilt projects. 19 6
o Napa Valley Transportation Authority’s Highway 29 Multimodal Project Draft EIR and Project Initiation Document.
o Napa Valley Transportation Authority’s Transit Plan
Legal and Policy Framework Review
The consultant shall prepare a concise legal and policy framework, in coordination with American Canyon Attorney, addressing:
• Mitigation Fee Act requirements.
• AB 602 nexus study requirements.
• Residential square-footage fee calculation requirements. • Required findings for any alternative residential fee methodology. • Requirements for identifying existing and proposed levels of service. • Requirements for reviewing prior fee assumptions if the updated study supports a fee increase.
• Requirements for CIP planning.
• Annual and five-year reporting requirements.
• Residential fee collection timing requirements.
• SB 743 / VMT considerations.
• Relationship between CEQA mitigation, local transportation standards, and development impact fees.
• Any relevant housing-related limitations on traffic impact fees, roadway widening requirements, or exactions.
The consultant is not expected to provide legal advice, but shall prepare technical work products suitable for City Attorney review.
Growth Forecast and Land Use Assumptions
The consultant shall prepare development projections to be used in the fee calculation. The analysis shall include:
• Existing land use and development inventory.
• Future growth assumptions by land use category.
• Residential growth by unit type and/or residential square footage. • Nonresidential growth by land use type, square footage, employees, trips, VMT, or other appropriate metric.
20 7
• Consistency with the General Plan, Housing Element, regional growth assumptions, and approved development pipeline.
• Identification of growth within any specific plan areas, priority development areas, or geographic benefit districts.
• Recommended planning horizon for the fee program.
The consultant shall clearly identify the data sources, assumptions, and methodology used.
Transportation Facility Needs and Project List
The consultant shall develop an updated list of fee-eligible transportation improvements. The project list may include, as appropriate:
• Roadway and intersection improvements.
• Complete streets improvements.
• Bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
• Transit-supportive improvements.
• Safe routes to school improvements.
• Traffic signals and intelligent transportation systems. • Railroad crossing improvements.
• Bridges, overcrossings, undercrossings, or interchange improvements. • VMT-reducing infrastructure.
• Planning, engineering, design, right-of-way, environmental clearance, construction management, and program administration costs, where legally appropriate.
For each project or project category, the consultant shall identify:
• Project description.
• Location.
• Planning-level cost estimate.
• Basis for cost estimate.
• Existing deficiency component, if any.
• Growth-related component.
• Fee-eligible cost share.
• Non-fee funding sources, if known.
21 8
• Relationship to General Plan, Mobility Element, CIP, specific plan, VMT policy, or other adopted City policy.
• Whether the project supports local circulation, multimodal access, VMT reduction, safety, or other transportation objectives.
Existing and Proposed Level of Service / Facility Standard Analysis Utilizing the new General Plan, the consultant shall identify, where applicable:
• Existing facility standards or levels of service.
• Proposed facility standards or levels of service.
• Explanation of why any proposed new or revised standard is appropriate. • Relationship between facility standards and future development. • How the standards are used to determine facility needs and fee amounts.
The consultant should not rely solely on automobile delay or roadway level of service unless appropriate for a non-CEQA local circulation purpose and clearly distinguished from CEQA VMT analysis.
Nexus Analysis and Fee Methodology
The consultant shall prepare a nexus analysis that supports the required findings for adoption of the fee program. The study shall identify:
• The purpose of the fee.
• The use of the fee.
• The public facilities to be funded.
• The relationship between the fee-funded facilities and the types of development paying the fee.
• The relationship between the need for the facilities and the types of development paying the fee.
• The relationship between the fee amount and the cost attributable to new development. • The reasonable allocation of costs among land use categories. • The treatment of existing deficiencies and non-growth costs. • The treatment of grants, regional funding, developer obligations, and other non-fee sources.
• Any proposed geographic benefit areas or fee zones.
• The maximum legally supportable fee by land use category. 22 9
• Recommended adopted fee levels, if different from the maximum supportable fee.
The consultant shall evaluate fee methodologies that may include trip generation, person trips, VMT, equivalent dwelling units, residential square footage, nonresidential square footage, employees, or other appropriate measures.
Residential Fee Methodology and AB 602 Compliance
For housing development projects, the consultant shall calculate fees proportionately to residential square footage unless the consultant recommends and supports an alternative methodology.
If an alternative residential fee methodology is recommended, the consultant shall prepare substantial technical support and proposed findings explaining:
• Why square footage is not an appropriate metric.
• Why the alternative metric establishes a reasonable relationship between the fee and the burden of development.
• How the fee structure avoids disproportionate impacts on smaller residential developments.
The consultant shall also evaluate whether fee reductions, phase-ins, or other policies are appropriate for smaller units, affordable housing, accessory dwelling units, mixed-use projects, infill projects, or transit-supportive development.
SB 743 / VMT and Multimodal Transportation Alignment
The consultant shall evaluate how the transportation impact fee program should align with SB 743 and American Canyon’s VMT policies. This task shall include:
• Identifying projects that reduce or avoid VMT.
• Identifying projects that support walking, bicycling, transit, safety, or complete streets. • Distinguishing between CEQA VMT mitigation and local transportation infrastructure funding.
• Evaluating whether a VMT-based, trip-based, or hybrid fee methodology is appropriate. • Recommending how American Canyon should treat roadway capacity projects within the fee program.
• Recommending whether any fee-funded projects should be characterized as VMT mitigation, local circulation improvements, safety improvements, or multimodal improvements.
Fee Program Administration
The consultant shall prepare recommendations for implementation and administration of the fee program, including:
23 10
• Fee collection timing.
• Residential fee deferral requirements.
• Credits for developer-constructed improvements.
• Reimbursements.
• Fee exemptions or reductions.
• Annual inflation adjustment.
• Fee appeals.
• Treatment of change of use, redevelopment, expansion, and replacement development. • Treatment of mixed-use projects.
• Treatment of accessory dwelling units.
• Treatment of affordable housing.
• Treatment of development agreements and vested projects. • Geographic fee zones or benefit districts, if recommended. • Coordination with American Canyon’s CIP and budget process. • Annual reporting procedures.
• Five-year findings procedures.
• Website transparency requirements.
• Internal staff workflow for calculating, collecting, tracking, and reporting fees.
Stakeholder Outreach and Public Meetings
The consultant shall support City staff in conducting public outreach and adoption proceedings.
The proposal should include assumptions for the number and type of meetings, which may include:
• Staff working meetings.
• Development community stakeholder meeting.
• Planning Commission study session or recommendation hearing. • City Council study session.
• City Council public hearing for adoption.
• Meetings with regional transportation agencies or partner agencies, if needed. 24 11
The consultant shall prepare presentation materials, respond to technical questions, and revise documents based on public, staff, and City Attorney comments.
Draft and Final Deliverables
The consultant shall prepare the following deliverables:
A. Project schedule and data request memorandum.
B. Existing fee program assessment.
C. Growth forecast and land use assumptions memorandum.
D. Transportation facility needs and project list.
E. Planning-level cost estimates.
F. Existing and proposed level of service / facility standard analysis.
G. Draft nexus study.
H. Draft fee schedule.
I. Draft implementation and administration recommendations.
J. Draft ordinance or resolution exhibits, in coordination with American Canyon Attorney.
K. Public hearing presentation materials.
L. Response to comments memorandum.
M. Final nexus study.
N. Final fee schedule.
O. Final implementation guide.
P. Excel-based fee calculation model.
Q. Excel-based annual reporting / tracking template.
R. Electronic copies of all final documents in Word, Excel, and PDF formats.
3.2. City-Provided Information
American Canyon anticipates making the following information available to the selected consultant:
• Current fee schedule.
• Existing traffic impact fee nexus study.
• General Plan and Circulation Element.
• Housing Element.
25 12
• 5-yr CIP.
• Transportation plans and studies.
• VMT policies and thresholds.
• Development pipeline.
• Building permit and development data.
• Prior annual and five-year Mitigation Fee Act reports. • GIS data, if available.
• Relevant specific plans and development agreements.
Additional information from the Napa Valley Transportation Authority will also be made available.
3.3. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Goal
[If there are special DBE requirements, use the following, if none, delete this entire section]
The City has set an X%Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation goal for this project.
3.4. Term of Contract
The initial term of the Contract is at the City's discretion and may be up to 3 years. The City also reserves the right to extend the Contract for up to 2 additional 1-year terms (individually, “Extension”) upon the same terms and conditions as parties agreed to in the Contract. Thus, parties agree the Contract may be for a total of 5 years upon the same terms and conditions as parties agreed in the Contract if necessary.
4. Proposal Requirements
4.1. Proposal Format & Content
Proposer Questionnaire must include each of the following sections to be uploaded in the Proposer Questionnaire section.
A. Proposal Transmittal Letter
B. Proposer's Mandatory Qualifications and Experience
C. Technical Project Approach
D. Cost Proposal
Specific content and format requirements for each section are detailed below.
Each section shall be uploaded in the Proposer Questionnaire section of this RFP. 26 13
4.2. Proposal Transmittal Letter
A Proposer is required to provide a written transmittal letter and offer in the form of a standard business letter ("Proposal Transmittal Letter" or "Letter"). The Proposal Transmittal Letter shall reference and respond to the following subsections in sequence and have attached to it corresponding documentation, as required. A Proposal Transmittal Letter is mandatory and failure to provide the required information may result in the proposal being considered nonresponsive and rejected.
A. Proposer's Name and Contact. The Letter shall state the complete name, or business name, of the Proposer making the Proposal. The Letter shall state the name, title, mailing address, email address, and telephone number of the person the City should contact regarding the Proposal.
B. Statement of Offer. The Letter shall state that the Proposal is an offer to complete the Scope of Work and the offer, including the Cost Proposal rates and budget, remains valid for at least ninety (90) business days after the Proposal due date.
C. Conflict of Interest. The Letter shall state whether the Proposer, or any individual who shall perform work under the Contract, has a possible conflict of interest and, if so, the nature of that conflict. The City reserves the right to terminate the Contract if its execution would or could create, or give the appearance of creating, a conflict of interest.
The City, at its sole discretion, shall make all determinations on the existence or appearance of a conflict of interest.
D. City Contract Terms. The Letter shall include a statement of acknowledgement that the City’s standard contract and insurance (Included in Attachments) have been reviewed and accepted by the Proposer with or without qualification.
1. If the Proposer has qualifications, the Proposer shall download a copy of the standard contract and re-upload a version of the document in the Proposer Questionnaire under Standard City Contract Qualifications identifying the contract language at issue and Proposer's suggested adjustment or modification.
2. If no qualifications are identified, Proposer is presumed to have accepted the City's standard contract and be capable of completing the Scope of Work, as well as all reasonably associated managerial tasks, without reservation or qualification.
E. Subcontractors. The Letter shall state whether the Proposer intends to use subcontractors, subconsultants, or other contracting parties to complete the Scope of Work (collectively, "Subcontractors"). If so, the Letter shall clearly identify the name of each proposed Subcontractor, their mailing address, email address, and telephone number as well as the service related to the Scope of Work that the Subcontractor is anticipated to perform. NOTE: The Consultant must obtain written approval from the City prior to the use of any Subcontractor, even after a Contract is executed.
F. Signature and Authority. The Letter shall be signed by a person empowered to bind the Proposer to the provisions of the RFP, and any contract awarded pursuant to it. 27 14
Evidence demonstrating authority to bind the Proposer shall be included or attached to the Letter, such as a statement describing the signatory's role with or relationship to the Proposer.
4.3. Proposer's Mandatory Qualifications and Experience A Proposal shall demonstrate that the Proposer holds the qualifications and experience required to complete the Scope of Work by referencing and responding to the following subsections in sequence and attaching corresponding documentation, as required ("Mandatory Qualifications and Experience"). The qualifications and experience listed below are mandatory and failure to provide the required information may result in the proposal being considered nonresponsive and rejected.
A. Organization. A brief description of Proposer's background, years in business, organizational history, and client base. Briefly state Proposer's total number of employees and list all relevant licenses, specialties, and trainings held by Proposer and/or employees. List office location(s) and identify the office(s) from which services will be performed.
B. Experience. A brief statement of how long Proposer has been performing the services required to complete the Scope of Work. Proposer shall have a minimum of five (5) years of experience providing the services required to complete the Scope of Work to public agencies in California. If the Proposer has been in business for less than five years, the experience of its principals may be used to meet this requirement.
C. Public Agency Experience. A description of no more than ten (10) public sector projects completed within the last five (5) years that demonstrates Proposer's experience performing services to complete the Scope of Work, including a statement as to whether Proposer has experience working for the City of West Sacramento, or a public agency similar in size to the City. Note key personnel involved in each project and if they are proposed for this Proposal and if applicable, differentiate which work was performed by subcontractor. List any contractual relationships with the City existing now or within the past five (5) years.
D. Personnel. A narrative description, resume, and organizational structure chart of personnel to be assigned to complete tasks within the Scope of Work, clearly indicating where Subcontractors will be used, if applicable. The narrative description or resume shall list, at least, each individual’s title, education, relevant experience and duration, professional licenses, and demonstrated accomplishments. Identify the individual who will lead the day-to-day work effort and serve as the primary contact to the City.
E. References. A list of five (5) references for whom the services required to complete the Scope of Work have been performed by Proposer within the last three (3) years. The list of references shall include name, mailing address, email address, brief description of services completed relevant to this RFP, and point of contact who can attest to the quality and effectiveness of the services.
28 15
F. History. A statement as to whether there have been any mergers, acquisitions, or sales related to Proposer's organizational structure within the last three (3) years. If so, attach an explanation providing relevant details.
G. Legal Challenges. Astatement as to whether there is any pending litigation against the Proposer. If such litigation exists, attach an opinion of counsel as to whether the pending litigation will impair the Proposer's ability to perform the Contract.
H. Fiscal Viability. A statement as to whether, in the last ten (10) years, the Proposer has filed (or had filed against it) any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding, whether voluntary or involuntary, or undergone the appointment of a receiver, trustee, or assignee for the benefit of creditors. If so, attach an explanation providing relevant details.
4.4. Technical Project Approach
A document detailing the operational and/or organizational approach the Proposer will take to timely fulfill the Scope of Work shall be submitted with the Proposal ("Technical Project Approach"). The Technical Project Approach shall be a comprehensive narrative describing how the Proposer will complete the Scope of Work, communicate with the City throughout the work, advance the project objectives, and provide continuity on work efforts.
4.5. Cost Proposal
A document detailing all costs associated to complete the Scope of Work shall be submitted with the Proposal ("Cost Proposal"). For sealed bids, the Cost Proposal shall be opened after and separately from the rest of the Proposal. Cost Proposal shall include all applicable federal, state, and local taxes and must be all-inclusive of project expenses, as no additional charges shall be allowed, except for additional services as requested by the City, if any. There shall be no additional reimbursement for travel time or expenses, telephone costs, copying costs, etc.
If applicable, the Cost Proposal shall separately delineate costs for optional term extensions and/or optional services. Proposer agrees to maintain pricing pursuant to the Cost Proposal for the duration of the Contract, and any optional extensions.
5. General Information
5.1. Proposal Submission
All Proposals, including any attachments, exhibits, or amendments, shall be submitted through the City's E-Procurement Portal, which will deliver Proposals to the City of American Canyon staff overseeing the solicitation. Proposals not submitted through the City's E-Procurement Portal shall be deemed nonresponsive and rejected. Proposals may not be delivered orally, by paper, by email, by facsimile transmission, or by any other means.
All proposals shall be submitted through the City’s e-Procurement Portal no later than:
Wednesday, July 15, 2026 at 5:00 pm.
A Proposer shall respond to the RFP and any exhibits, attachments, or amendments. 29 16
A Proposer's failure to submit a Proposal in compliance with the procedures and timelines set forth in the RFP shall cause the Proposal to be deemed nonresponsive and rejected. A late Proposal shall not be accepted. Additional time to respond shall not be granted to any Proposer.
5.2. Questions and/or Objections
It is to the City and Proposer's benefit that questions and objections are brought to the City's attention so it may issue necessary amendments to the RFP and help prevent the opening of defective proposals upon which the City could not award a Contract. Proposer should carefully review this RFP and all attachments for comments, questions, defects, objections, or any other matter requiring clarification or correction (collectively, “Questions”).
A Proposer may submit Questions related to this RFP to the City through the City’s eProcurement Portal at or before:
Wednesday, July 1, 2026 at 1:00 pm.
Questions shall be considered waived and invalid if not brought to the attention of the City in conformity with this subsection. Questions not submitted through the City's e-Procurement Portal will not be accepted or responded to. Questions submitted after the deadline will not be accepted or responded to. Questions and answers will be posted on the City's e-Procurement Portal and visible to all.
Any revisions to the Standard Contract should be in the Proposal Transmission Letter and shown in redline, as described above. (4.2.D)
5.3. General Proposal Format Requirements
A. The City discourages lengthy and costly proposals. A Proposal should be prepared simply and economically and provide a straightforward, concise description of the Proposer's capabilities to satisfy the requirements of this RFP. Emphasis should be on conformity to the City’s instructions, requirements of this RFP, and completeness and clarity of content.
B. A Proposal must address all portions of the RFP, provide all information requested, and comply with all formatting requirements detailed herein.
C. A Proposal must be labeled and organized as requested in this RFP, including using section headers. Failure to follow the specified format, to label the responses correctly, or to address all of the subsections may, at the City’s sole discretion, result in the rejection of a Proposal.
D. A Proposal must not contain extraneous information. All information presented in a Proposal must be relevant to, and in response to, a requirement of this RFP. Any information not meeting these criteria shall be deemed extraneous and shall in no way contribute to the evaluation process.
E. A Proposal shall be prepared on standard 8 1/2" x 11" formatted electronic documents.
Foldouts containing charts, spreadsheets, and other exhibits are permissible but 30 17
Proposer shall be reminded that responses will be read electronically through the City’s e-Procurement Portal.
F. All responses, as well as any reference material presented, must be written in English.
G. All monetary amounts must be detailed in United States currency.
H. All uploaded proposal pages must be numbered. Proposals shall be limited to a total of twenty-five (25) pages and should not include unnecessary company advertisement material. Resumes and references are part of the proposal package and will be included as part of the total page count. Cost proposals may be excluded.
5.4. Proposal Preparation, Interview, and Negotiation Costs The City shall not be responsible for, nor shall it pay, any costs associated with the preparation, proposal, or presentation of any Proposal, or costs incurred by the Proposer during the preparation of the Proposal, the Proposal Evaluation Process, or Contract Award Process.
5.5. Proposal Withdrawal
A Proposal may be withdrawn at any time by clicking "unsubmit" on the City's e-Procurement Portal. If after withdrawing a Proposal and before the deadline to submit a Proposal, a Proposer may submit another Proposal.
5.6. Proposal Amendment
A Proposal may be amended prior to the deadline to submit a Proposal by unsubmitting and resubmitting a Proposal on the City's e-Procurement Portal. After the deadline to submit a Proposal, the City shall not accept any amendments, revisions, or alterations to a Proposal.
5.7. Proposal Errors
Proposers are liable for all errors or omissions contained in their Proposal. A Proposer is prohibited from altering a Proposal through any means after the deadline for submitting a proposal.
5.8. Incorrect Proposal Information
If the City determines that a Proposer has provided, for consideration in the Proposal Evaluation Process or Contract Award Process incorrect information which the Proposer knew or should have known was materially incorrect, the Proposal may be rejected by the City, at its sole discretion.
6. Terms and Conditions
6.1. Executive Order N-6-22 – Russia Sanctions
On March 4, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-6-22 (the EO) regarding Economic Sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals. “Economic Sanctions” refers to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, as well as any sanctions imposed under state law. By submitting a bid or proposal, Contractor represents that it is not a target of Economic Sanctions. Should the State determine Contractor is a target of Economic Sanctions or is conducting prohibited transactions with sanctioned 31 18
individuals or entities, that shall be grounds for rejection of the Contractor’s bid/proposal any time prior to contract execution, or, if determined after contract execution, shall be grounds for termination by the State.
6.2. Assignment and Subcontracting
The Contractor may not subcontract, transfer, or assign any portion of the Contract without prior written approval from the City. Any subcontractor, subconsultant, or other contracting parties (collectively, "Subcontractor") must be specifically approved in writing by the City. Inclusion of a subcontractor in a Proposal does not guarantee the City's later approval of a Subcontractor.
Notwithstanding the use of an approved Subcontractor, the Contractor shall remain the prime contractor and responsible for all work performed under the Contract and pursuant to this RFP.
6.3. RFP Amendment and Cancellation
The City reserves the right to amend, cancel, or reissue this RFP at any time and at its sole discretion. Any amendment shall be in writing and posted to the City's e-Procurement portal. A potential Proposer is solely responsible for clicking "Follow" on the RFP page to receive notifications and shall be solely responsible for complying with such notifications.
6.4. Right of Rejection
A. The City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to reject any and all Proposals, no matter their level of responsiveness, or to cancel this RFP in its entirety.
B. A Proposer must comply with all of the terms and instruction of this RFP, and all applicable state and local laws and regulations. Any Proposal that does not meet the requirements of this RFP may be considered to be nonresponsive and rejected.
C. A Proposer may not restrict the rights of the City or otherwise qualify a Proposal. If a Proposer does so, the City may determine the Proposal is a nonresponsive counteroffer, and the Proposal may be rejected.
D. The City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to waive variances in a Proposal, provided such action is in the best interest of the City. Where the City waives variances in a Proposal, such waiver does not modify the RFP requirements or excuse the Proposer from full compliance with the RFP. Notwithstanding any variance, the City may hold any Proposer to strict compliance with the RFP.
6.5. Prohibition of Respondent Terms and Conditions
A Proposer shall not submit their own contract terms and conditions in a Proposal. If a Proposal contains such terms and conditions, the City, at its sole discretion, may reject the Proposal. A Proposer may either submit Questions to gain clarification on a term of the City's standard contract or submit proposed revisions to the City's standard contract in redline as part of the Proposal Transmission Letter, both pursuant to the terms of this RFP. 32 19
6.6. Joint Ventures and Partnering
A Proposal from joint ventures or entities partnering for a specific service must be designed to minimize any administrative burden on the City as a result of the participation of multiple entities. Joint proposals must adhere to the following:
A. The Proposer shall respond to each section and subsection of this RFP.
B. The Proposal shall clearly set forth the respective responsibilities and functions that each Principal of the joint venture or partnering entities would perform if awarded a Contract pursuant to this RFP.
C. The Proposal must include a copy of the joint venture or partnering agreement(s) that identify the Principals involved, as well as their rights and responsibilities regarding the Contract pursuant to this RFP.
D. The Proposal Transmittal Letter must be signed by each Principal of the joint venture and include all required information.
6.7. Proposal of Alternate Services
A Proposal for alternate services (i.e., proposals that offer something different from that requested by the RFP) will be considered nonresponsive and rejected.
6.8. Proposal of Additional Services
A Proposal may indicate and offer services in addition to those required by this RFP. These additional services may be added to the Contract, at the sole discretion of the City. The cost for any such additional services shall be mutually agreed upon by the Contractor and the City, and incorporated into the Contract before execution.
6.9. Severability
If any provision of this RFP is declared by a court to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the City and Proposers shall be construed and enforced as if the RFP did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid.
6.10. Licensure and Special Certification
Before executing the Contract pursuant to this RFP, the Contractor must hold all necessary business and professional licenses and certifications to complete the Scope of Work. The City may require any or all Proposers to submit evidence of proper licensure and certifications.
6.11. Disclosure of Proposal Contents
All Proposals and other materials submitted to the City related to this RFP shall become the property of the City. Selection or rejection of a Proposal does not affect this right. All proposal information, including detailed price and cost information, shall be held in confidence during the evaluation and selection process. Upon the completion of the evaluation and selection process, or by rejection of all Proposals, the Proposals and shall be open for review by the public to the extent required by the California Public Records Act, Government Code section 6254 et seq.. 33 20
By submitting a Proposal, a Proposer acknowledges and accepts that the contents of the Proposal and associated documents shall become open to public inspection.
Portions of a Proposal exempt from public disclosure by law may be protected from public disclosure by the City. A Proposer is required to clearly label such portion of a Proposal "CONFIDENTIAL" and list the grounds for non-disclosure. In doing so, the Proposer thereby agrees to indemnify and defend the City from any action arising from the non-disclosure of the information. The failure to so label any information shall constitute a complete waiver of all claims for damages caused by or related to any release of the information.
6.12. Conflict of Interest and Restrictions
By submitting a Proposal, the Proposer certifies that no amount shall be paid directly or indirectly to an employee or official of the City as wages, compensation, or gifts in exchange for acting as an officer, agent, employee, subcontractor, or consultant to the Proposer in connection with the procurement under this RFP.
6.13. Proprietary Information
A copy of each Proposal shall be retained for official files and will become public record after the award of a contract unless the Proposal, or specific parts of the Proposal, can be shown to be exempt by law. Each Proposer may clearly label any part of a Proposal as "CONFIDENTIAL." In doing so, the Proposer thereby agrees to indemnify and defend the City for withholding the information from public inspection. Failure to label information shall constitute a complete waiver of all claims for damages caused by or related to any release of the information.
If a public records request for appropriately-labeled information is received by the City, the City will endeavor to notify the Proposer of the request and delay access to the material until seven (7) working days after the City’s notice. Within that time delay, it will be the duty of the Proposer to act in protection of its labeled information. Failure to so act shall constitute a complete waiver.
7. Evaluation Criteria
No. Evaluation Criteria Scoring Method Weight (Points)
1. Proposer Understanding
Information and completeness of a
Proposal in conformity with the
requirements in the RFP.
Points Based 40
(40% of Total)
2. Proposer Qualifications and Experience
Qualifications and experience of the
Proposer and members of the team that
may be assigned tasks within the Scope of
Work.
Points Based 30
(30% of Total)
34 21
3. Proven Ability
Ability to complete the Scope of Work, as
described in the Proposal, including
experience completing projects for public
agencies similar to the City.
Points Based 30
(30% of Total)
8. Consultant Selection and Contract Award
8.1. Proposal Requirements
Proposals shall include the following:
A. Cover Letter
Provide a cover letter signed by an authorized representative of the firm. The letter shall identify the project manager and confirm the firm’s ability to perform the work.
B. Firm Qualifications
Describe the firm’s qualifications and experience preparing California development impact fee nexus studies, transportation impact fee programs, AB 602-compliant studies, VMT-related transportation fee programs, and public agency fee updates.
C. Project Understanding and Approach
Describe the consultant’s understanding of the project, key issues, recommended methodology, and approach to preparing a legally defensible and administratively practical fee program.
D. Scope of Work
Provide a detailed scope of work, organized by task. The proposal may use American Canyon’s requested scope or recommend modifications.
E. Project Team
Identify the project manager, key personnel, subconsultants, and their roles. Include resumes for key team members.
F. Relevant Experience
Provide at least three comparable projects completed for California cities, counties, or special districts. For each project, include:
• Client name.
• Project description.
• Date completed.
• Consultant role.
• Fee types studied.
• Whether the study addressed AB 602, transportation fees, VMT, or residential squarefootage fee calculations. 35 22
• Client reference, including name, title, phone number, and email.
G. Schedule
Provide a proposed schedule showing major tasks, meetings, deliverables, review periods, and adoption milestones.
F. Cost Proposal
Provide a not-to-exceed cost proposal by task. The cost proposal shall identify labor hours, hourly rates, subconsultant costs, reimbursable expenses, and optional task costs.
American Canyon may require the cost proposal to be submitted separately from the technical proposal.
G. Assumptions and Exclusions
Identify all assumptions, exclusions, City responsibilities, data needs, and optional services.
H. Conflicts of Interest
Identify any potential conflicts of interest, including work performed for developers, property owners, or other parties with pending or foreseeable development interests in American Canyon.
8.2. Proposal Evaluation Process
The Proposal review and evaluation process will comply with the following processes ("Proposal Evaluation Process"):
A. The Proposal Evaluation Process is designed to establish a list of qualified Proposers with the best combination of attributes based upon the Evaluation Criteria.
B. The City's Proposal Evaluation Process is intended to identify the Proposer with the best combination of attributes. Cost is not the exclusive attribute and the lowest Proposer is not guaranteed to be offered a Contract.
C. The Project Contact, identified in the "Contact Information" of this RFP, shall manage the Proposal Evaluation Process and maintain all records related to the process.
D. The Project Contact shall conduct an initial review of all Proposals and determine if each Proposal is in compliance with the requirement specified in this RFP and, thereby, responsive.
E. The Project Contact shall work with selected City staff whose specialties and responsibilities are relevant to this RFP (collectively, "Evaluation Team") to complete the evaluation process.
F. The Evaluation Team shall evaluate all responsive Proposals. Each Evaluation Team member shall score each responsive Proposal based on the Evaluation Criteria.
G. The City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to request clarification of any Proposal.
Any such communication shall only be after initial evaluation by the Evaluation Team 36 23
and only for the purpose of ensuring full understanding of the Proposal. Any clarification shall be made by the Proposer in writing.
H. Proposers with the highest scores pursuant to the Evaluation Criteria may be asked to complete an interview. The City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to request an interview. If requested, interviews shall be conducted as provided in this RFP.
8.3. Proposer Interviews
The top-rated Proposers with the highest score from the Evaluation Criteria may be interviewed and rated. The City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to request interviews. If interviews are held, they will occur at a time and location to be specified or virtually via a City internet platform.
A. Interviews will be conducted by the Evaluation Team and in a format determined by the Team, generally consisting of Team questions and Proposer presentations. The interviews will be limited to one (1) hour. The Evaluation Team shall use the Evaluation Criteria to rate Proposers during the interview.
B. Interviews shall be attended by the individual identified in the Proposal as the primary contact to the City on a day-to-day basis and members of the proposed team identified in the "Personnel" section of the Mandatory Qualifications and Experience.
C. Following all interviews, the Evaluation Team will re-rank the Proposers to determine the highest ranked Proposers.
8.4. Contract Award Process
The contract selection and award process shall comply with the following process ("Contract Award Process"):
A. The Project Contact shall invite the Proposer with the highest score from the Proposal Evaluation Process to participate in contract negotiations with the City.
B. Proposer and City shall negotiate the final terms and conditions of the Contract, pursuant to this RFP. The Contact shall contain the same, or substantially the same, terms and conditions as portrayed in this RFP, the Scope of Work, the Proposal, and the City's Standard Contract.
C. Following negotiations, the City shall draft a contract for execution by all parties. If the Proposer fails to sign and return the Contact within seven (7) working days of its delivery to the Proposer, the City may determine, at its sole discretion, that the Proposer is nonresponsive to the terms of this RFP and initiate further Proposal Evaluation Processes.
D. City records related to this RFP shall be made available for public inspection, as permitted by law, following Contract execution, or rejection of all Proposals.
E. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all Proposals.
9. Standard Contract Information
37 24
9.1. Standard Contract
The Contract executed pursuant to this RFP shall contain the same, or substantially the same, terms as provided in the City of American Canyon Standard Professional Services Contract (provided in Attachments). Capitalized, highlighted or bracketed items shall be replaced with appropriate information in the final contract.
This RFP, including the Scope of Work, and the successful Proposal emanating from the RFP process shall be incorporated into the Contract.
9.2. Insurance Requirements
The apparent successful Proposer will be required to provide proof of insurance as set forth in the Standard Contract (exhibit C) and Insurance Requirements, both found in Attachments, prior to commencing work. Exceptions to City insurance requirements will not be made. Any Proposer unable to meet the insurance requirements, as detailed, shall not be eligible for selection or award of a Contract.
9.3. Contract Approval
This RFP, Proposal Evaluation Process and Contract Award Process do not obligate the City to act in any certain way and do not create rights, interests, or claims of entitlement to any Proposer or any other entity. Any perceived or actual obligation of the City related to this RFP shall not commence until after the Contract is fully executed in compliance with City ordinances and regulations to establish a legally binding contract.
9.4. Contract Payment
Contract payments shall only be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract and only after the Contract is fully executed in compliance with City ordinances and regulations. No payment shall be made until the Contract is executed. The City shall not be liable for any payment related to this RFP or the Scope of Work prior to the execution of the Contact, even if the services or work is done in good faith or reliant on oral promises.
9.5. Contract Monitoring
The Consultant shall be responsible for the completion of all services required to complete the Scope of Work. All services, work, and tasks pursuant to the Scope of Work are subject to inspection, evaluation, and acceptance by the City. The City may employ all reasonable means to ensure that the Scope of Work is progressing and being performed in compliance with the Contract, including, but not limited to, inspection of Consultant's office, records, files, and other materials and places related to the Scope of Work. If the City wishes to conduct such an inspection, the Consultant shall provide reasonable access and assistance.
9.6. Contract Amendment
During the course of the Contract, the City may request the Consultant to perform additional services for which the Consultant would be compensated. Those services shall be within the general scope of this RFP. In such instances, the City shall provide the Consultant a written description of the additional work, and the Consultant shall submit a time schedule and cost proposal for completing the additional services, based on either the rates included in the Consultants Proposal to this RFP or else a fixed fee that is mutually agreed to by City and Consultant, whichever is lowest. If the City and Consultant reach an agreement regarding the 38 25
services and associated compensation, said agreement shall become effective by means of an amendment to the Contract.
10. Proposer Questionnaire
10.1. Proposal Requirements*
Please confirm that you have read and met all of the Proposal Requirements. ☐ Yes
☐ No
*Response required
10.2. Please enter Legal Company Name and any related DBA* Please enter the full legal company name and any other business names related to this proposal registered with the Secretary of State to conduct business in the State of California. *Response required
10.3. Type of Business*
Please confirm your form of business.
☐ Individual
☐ Sole Proprietor
☐ Corporation
☐ Non-Profit Corporation
☐ Partnership
☐ Joint Venture
☐ Limited Liability Company
*Response required
10.4. California Contractors State License Board #
Please provide your Contractors License #, if applicable.
10.5. Proposal Documents without Cost Proposal*
Please upload all of the following Proposal Documents here and in the following order, WITHOUT any Cost Proposal documents.
A. Proposal Transmittal Letter
B. Proposer's Mandatory Qualifications and Experience
C. Technical Project Approach
*Response required
10.6. Cost Proposal Documents*
Please upload ONLY your Cost Proposal documents here. The Cost Proposal must be uploaded separately from the rest of the proposal.
*Response required
39 26
10.7. Standard City Contract Qualifications
If the Proposer seeks any contract modifications, they must upload a redlined version of the contract provided in the Attachments, clearly identifying the specific language at issue and the proposed revisions in a Word document.
If no modifications are submitted, this question may be skipped and no upload is required. In the absence of any submission, the Proposer will be deemed to have accepted the Contract terms in full and to be capable of performing the Scope of Work, along with all related managerial responsibilities, without reservation.
10.8. Insurance Requirements*
The Proposer acknowledges the City's insurance requirements and endorsements as outlined in the Insurance Requirements (exhibit C) in Attachments. Any Proposal unable to meet the Insurance requirements shall be considered nonresponsive and ineligible for Contract award.
Proposer shall be required to provide proof of requisite insurance prior to Contract execution.
Failure to do so shall be just cause for forfeiture of the Proposal guaranty and/or rejection of the Proposal.
☐ Please confirm
*Response required
10.9. Certification Regarding Debarment
The City performs a SAM.GOV verification check to confirm debarment status. Please download the attached document, complete the form, and upload.
A unique entity identifier is requested for contracts greater than $25,000 or funded with Federal dollars. Your entity may register for a unique entity identifier on SAM.GOV at the following link https://sam.gov/content/entity-registration.
For all other proposers, the completed form is sufficient. • Certification_Regarding_Deb...
10.10. Other Documentation
Please upload additional documentation required by this RFP here as well as any additional documentation that you feel would be a value to your submitted proposal. For example: Awards, Licenses, etc.
10.11. Authorized Contract Signer*
Please provide the name, title and email address of the authorized contract signer. *Response required
40 American Canyon
Transportation
Impact Fee Nexus
Study & Fee
Program Update
Prepared for: Submitted on:
City of American Canyon July 15, 2026
41 July 15, 2026
Transmittal Letter
Noni Thomas, Management Analyst
City of American Canyon, Public Works Department
4381 Broadway Street
American Canyon, CA 94503
Subject: Proposal to Provide Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study & Fee Program Update Services to the City of American Canyon
Dear Noni Thomas & members of the selection panel:
With the recent adoption of a new General Plan, the City of American Canyon has charted a course for community growth in the years ahead. To keep pace with the City’s growth, an updated Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Program is the opportunity to turn the General Plan’s vision into funded transportation improvements. Matching the new TIF Program to the new General Plan and recent legislation, the City will have a clear and defensible basis for funding the transportation infrastructure improvements that support new growth. The City needs a team that understands compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act and recent legislation, including AB 602, AB 3177, and AB 2553, and the implications of the recent Sheetz v. El Dorado County and Building Industry Association (BIA) v. City of Patterson decisions.
Fehr & Peers knows the City of American Canyon and the broader Napa Valley. We recently updated the City’s Traffic Calming Program, completed the citywide speed survey, and continue to support the City on an on-call basis. We pair that local knowledge with statewide leadership in transportation impact fees and recent fee program work in nearby communities including the Solano Transportation Authority’s Regional TIF Nexus update, Sonoma County’s Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, Fairfield’s TIF update, and San Rafael’s Nexus Study update. Across California, Fehr & Peers has developed and updated more than 50 transportation impact fee programs, all built to reflect current law, including the shift to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis under SB 743, and to tie fees directly to the General Plan, Circulation Element, and Capital Improvement Program.
Our proposed approach builds on the City’s adopted plans and existing fee program. We will prepare the nexus study, updated project list, and fee schedule in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act and current legislation, and structure the program so it is transparent, proportionate, and straightforward for City staff to administer and defend. Our methodology emphasizes clarity, reproducibility, and practical implementation, giving the City tools and documentation it can apply with confidence long after adoption.
Fehr & Peers brings a highly skilled, Bay Area-based team with extensive experience in nexus studies, VMT analysis, and multimodal planning, as well as direct experience working with the City of American Canyon. I will serve as Principal-in-Charge, drawing on years of leading nexus studies for clients throughout the Bay Area combined with leadership in SB 743 implementation and VMT analysis. Bruno Lertora will serve as Project Manager and your day-to-day contact, applying recent experience managing the Solano County RTIF Nexus Update, Lamorinda TIF Nexus Update, and San Ramon TIF Nexus Study.
42 Mackenzie Watten will serve as Technical Advisor; he leads our travel behavior forecasting group and brings the travel demand modeling expertise that underpins the VMT and trip generation analysis at the heart of a defensible nexus study. Ashlee Takushi will round out our team, bringing firsthand knowledge of American Canyon and the Napa Valley through recent projects and adding valuable local insight.
Please direct any questions to:
Bruno Lertora | Project Manager
Fehr & Peers
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
[email protected] | (925) 357-3373
Fehr & Peers is not currently providing services for any private development project within the City of American Canyon. We provide transportation planning and engineering services to public and private clients throughout California and given the breadth of that work we cannot anticipate whether a client we serve might hold an interest in the City. We are not aware of any relationship that would impair our ability to serve American Canyon objectively, and we will promptly disclose and address any actual or potential conflict of interest that arises during this engagement.
I, Julie Morgan, am authorized to bind Fehr & Peers to this proposal and any resulting contract. Our team is committed to collaborating with City of American Canyon staff to refine the scope and deliverables, ensuring they align with your priorities, schedule, and budget. Our firm understands the sample contract, conflicts of interest provisions, timeline, and insurance as outlined in the RFP. Fehr & Peers has reviewed the City's professional services agreement and insurance requirements and submits its exceptions as a separate redlined document. This proposal, including the cost proposal provided separately, remains valid for 90 days following the July 15, 2026, due date. This work will be performed entirely by Fehr & Peers staff, with no subconsultants. We appreciate the opportunity to continue our partnership with the American Canyon community and look forward to supporting the successful update of this important program.
Sincerely,
Fehr & Peers
Julie K. Morgan AICP
Principal-in-Charge &
Director of Operations
As Director of Operations, Julie is responsible for overseeing operations across the firm, evaluating operational performance, tracking progress towards operational goals, and overseeing our annual financial forecasts and action plans.
She will also serve as Principal-in-Charge for this contract. 43 Table of Contents
Transmittal Letter .......................................................................................................................... ii Qualifications & Experience .......................................................................................................... 1 Technical Project Approach ......................................................................................................... 8 Appendices
Appendix A. Staff Resumes
Appendix B. Proposed Schedule
44 American Canyon Nexus Study | 1
Qualifications & Experience
Organization
About our firm.
We are a transportation planning and
engineering firm with 24 offices and over 400
staff nationwide. Since 1985, we have partnered
with public and private clients to design safer,
more effective ways for people and goods to
move — creating spaces where everyone can
thrive, today and for generations to come.
Bringing together data, technology, and the
experiences of the communities we serve, we
help clients make confident, well-informed
decisions. Along the way, we have earned
national recognition for raising the bar on how
transportation projects are planned, designed,
and delivered. Many of our first clients still trust
us with their transportation needs after decades
of collaboration — a testament to the strong
partnerships we build and the innovative
mindset we bring to every project. We do not
just follow trends; we help clients anticipate
what is next. With a blend of multimodal
expertise, national perspective, and local insight
fueled by our strong and longstanding
relationships, we tailor solutions across a wide
range of services to meet each community’s
unique needs.
Our specialties include transportation impact fee
and nexus studies, VMT analysis under SB 743,
travel demand forecasting, and multimodal
planning and design, and our staff hold
professional credentials including Professional
Engineer (PE), Traffic Engineer (TE),
Professional Traffic Operations Engineer
(PTOE), Certified Planner (AICP and or PTP),
and Registered Safety Professional (RSP). Our
Walnut Creek office will be the primary office
serving the City of American Canyon, supported
by staff who have worked directly with the City
and across the North Bay. Many of our earliest
clients still trust us decades later, a testament to
the partnerships we build and the forwardlooking approach we bring to every project.
Proposed project team.
With four Bay Area offices and over 100
technical staff, we have the resources to
dedicate ourselves to creating quality
deliverables for American Canyon. As Principalin-Charge, Julie Morgan will apply her decadeslong expertise as a professional planner leading local and regional fee and nexus programs
including the Solano County and Sonoma
County fee updates and will guide delivery of
the City’s goals. Bruno Lertora leads our team as
Project Manager and your day-to-day contact,
bringing recent, directly relevant technical
experience and understanding through the
Solano Transportation Authority RTIF,
Lamorinda TIF Nexus Update, San Ramon TIF
Nexus Study, and the City of Pleasant Hill
Impact Fee Nexus Study. Experienced staff,
Mackenzie Watten and Ashlee Takushi, round
out our proposed team, with Ashlee having
worked on various efforts with the City of
American Canyon and broader Napa Valley, and
Mackenzie bringing travel demand modeling
expertise supporting VMT and trip generation
analysis for Solano County, San Ramon, Oakland,
and Brisbane. Complete resumes are available in
Appendix A.
45 American Canyon Nexus Study | 2
Experience
Fehr & Peers has served agencies throughout
the Bay Area for more than 40 years from our
offices in Walnut Creek, San Francisco, Oakland,
and San Jose. There are now more than 100
technical professionals working across all our
Bay Area office locations.
Fehr & Peers has a long history of conducting
Nexus studies for development impact fees, a
core part of our transportation planning practice
since our firm began. We bring together deep
knowledge of an agency’s local needs and
context, combined with rigorous expertise in the
legal and analytical requirements of Nexus
studies, to produce fee programs that are solid,
defensible, practical, and implementable. We
also have extensive North Bay experience and an
established presence serving agencies
throughout Napa County and the City of
American Canyon. Our familiarity with local
roadway networks, development patterns,
regional travel behavior, and community
priorities allows us to provide practical, contextsensitive transportation solutions. Combined with the resources of our broader Bay Area
team, we offer clients both local insight and
specialized expertise across transportation
planning, engineering, multimodal mobility,
safety, and development services. Through our
North Bay staff and nearby Bay Area offices, we
can provide responsive support to local
agencies on transportation impact analysis,
corridor planning, multimodal improvements,
development review, and implementation
strategies that help communities maintain
mobility while advancing long-term planning
objectives. As you will see from the sampling of
similar project work presented below, many of
our fee program clients choose to work with us
over many years and multiple cycles of nexus
updates, establishing longstanding relationships
and trusting us to build and maintain one of the
crucial elements of their infrastructure funding
process.
Building upon our extensive experience with
impact fee nexus studies and our unparalleled
expertise in VMT analysis and SB 743
implementation, Fehr & Peers has also recently
led several studies of VMT Mitigation Programs,
including the Contra Costa VMT Mitigation
Program feasibility study for CCTA, the LADOT
SB 743 Mitigation Pilot Program, the Sonoma
County VMT Mitigation Program for the
Sonoma County Transportation and Climate
Authority, and the San Mateo Countywide VMT
Mitigation Program for the City/County
Association of Governments in San Mateo.
Completed Project Experience
Solano County Regional Transportation
Impact Fee & Update
Fehr & Peers played a key role on the consulting
team charged with developing the first regional
transportation impact fee program in Solano
County. A successful regional fee program
requires cooperation among many local
stakeholders, and developing such a program
requires thorough technical analysis, compliance
with legal mandates, and sensitivity to important
local political and economic issues. Fehr & Peers
and the rest of the team developed a
comprehensive approach to engaging the key
stakeholders in a collaborative and informed
decision-making process. Fehr & Peers staff led
all the technical analysis required to establish
the necessary nexus relationships between
capital improvements to be funded and the
amount of the fee. This effort required extensive
use of the Napa-Solano regional travel demand
model, combined with the local knowledge and
transportation planning expertise of several Fehr
& Peers staff. As part of a separate contract,
Julie and Bruno have continued to work with the
Solano Transportation Authority for many years
on fee program updates and revenue projections
that were incorporated into a project
prioritization process.
Client Name: Solano Transportation Authority
Location: Solano County, CA
Timeline: 2021 – 2025
46 American Canyon Nexus Study | 3
Value: $155,000
Consultant Role: Prime
Fee Types Studied: Countywide regional
transportation impact fee
AB 602/VMT/Residential SF Calculations: Nexus
established using the Solano-Napa ActivityBased Model for countywide growth projections Reference: Jasper Alve, Senior Project Manager
[email protected] | (707) 399-3204
Pleasant Hill Transportation Impact
Fee & CIP Update
Fehr & Peers prepared and updated the City of
Pleasant Hill’s Traffic Impact Fee program to
reflect current capital priorities and growth
expectations. After delivering the initial nexus
study in 2023, we revised the project list and
costs to incorporate the City’s 2024-2029
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the
newly adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan, aligned land use assumptions with recent
planning work, and recalibrated fees using
dwelling unit equivalents based on ITE trip
generation rates and a clear, project-based
nexus consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act.
Fehr & Peers also coordinated with the City
Attorney on AB 602 compliance and supported
the City through the fee adoption process.
Client Name: City of Pleasant Hill
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Timeline: 2025
Value: $54,000
Consultant Role: Prime
Fee Types Studied: Citywide traffic impact fee
funding City Capital Improvement Program and
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan projects
AB 602/VMT/Residential SF Calculations:
Addressed AB 602 through coordination with
the City Attorney; fees calculated using dwelling
unit equivalents based on ITE trip generation
rates (no VMT-based component)
Reference: Laetitia Galeazzi, Senior Engineer
[email protected] | (925) 671-5252
San Rafael Transportation Fee Report &
Nexus Study Update
Fehr & Peers updated the City of San Rafael's
Traffic Mitigation Fee (TMF) Nexus Report,
building on the 2021 report Fehr & Peers
prepared alongside General Plan 2040. The
update converted the fee from a per-trip basis
to land-use-based rates and brought it into
compliance with the state laws most relevant to
American Canyon: AB 602 (residential fees by
square footage), AB 2553, and AB 3177
(reduced fees for housing near major transit
stops). Fehr & Peers added new projects to the
fee list, recalculated the maximum fee by land
use type using the Marin County travel demand
model, and prepared the updated nexus report
for the City.
Client Name: City of San Rafael
Location: San Rafael, CA
Timeline: 9/2024 – 2/2025
Value: $75,000
Consultant Role: Prime
Fee Types Studied: Transportation Mitigation
Fee, converted from per-trip to land-use-based
AB 602/VMT/Residential SF Calculations:
Addressed AB 602 (residential square-footage
fees), AB 2553, and AB 3177; land-use-based
fee established using the Marin County travel
demand model
Reference: Sarah Teplitsky, Associate Engineer
[email protected] |
(415) 485-3158
47 American Canyon Nexus Study | 4
Public Agency Experience
Sonoma County Development Impact
Fee Nexus Study
Fehr & Peers is updating the Sonoma County
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study as
transportation subconsultant to Harris &
Associates, building on the prior Sonoma County
nexus study Fehr & Peers prepared in 2020. The
update brings the County's Countywide and
Sonoma Valley transportation impact fee
programs into compliance with AB 602,
translating demand into residential fees by
square footage, and reflects the Mitigation Fee
Act's reasonable-relationship findings and the
recent Sheetz decision. Fehr & Peers leads the
transportation analysis, updating growth
projections and the project list and using the
Sonoma County travel demand model to
establish each land use type's fair-share nexus
across both fee programs.
Client: County of Sonoma
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Timeline: 8/2025 – 12/2026
Value: $96,000
Fehr & Peers Role: Subconsultant
Key Personnel: Julie Morgan
American Canyon Speed Survey
Fehr & Peers completed a citywide Engineering
and Traffic Survey for the City of American
Canyon, establishing defensible, enforceable
speed limits across the surveyed roadway
segments in accordance with the California
Vehicle Code and the California MUTCD. The
survey documented prevailing speeds and
roadway conditions and supported the
adjustments needed to give the City a current
engineering basis for radar speed enforcement.
Client: City of American Canyon
Location: American Canyon, CA
Timeline: 8/2022 – 8/2023
Value: $53,000
Fehr & Peers Role: Prime
Key Personnel: Ashlee Takushi
American Canyon Traffic Calming
Program
Fehr & Peers prepared the City of American
Canyon's Traffic Calming Program, delivered as
a final report in March 2024. The program gives
the City a clear structure and application
process for evaluating and prioritizing
neighborhood traffic calming requests, along
with a toolbox of measures ranging from
education and targeted enforcement to speedand volume-control devices such as speed tables, raised crosswalks, traffic circles,
roundabouts, and pedestrian refuge islands. The
result is a consistent, data-informed process
City staff can use to respond to community
concerns about speeding and cut-through
traffic.
Client: City of American Canyon
Location: American Canyon, CA
Timeline: 3/2023 – 8/2024
Value: $46,000
Fehr & Peers Role: Prime
Key Personnel: Ashlee Takushi
San Ramon Transportation Impact Fee
Fehr & Peers updated the San Ramon Traffic
Impact Fee (SRTIF) to reflect current conditions
and General Plan assumptions and to
incorporate new capital projects from the
Bicycle Master Plan and ITS Master Plan. Using
CCTA’s regional travel demand model, we
recalculated the fee and allocated it across
residential and non-residential land use
categories, delivering a final nexus report
consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act while
preserving the program’s existing structure for a
smooth transition.
Client Name: City of San Ramon
Location: San Ramon, CA
Timeline: 2021 – 2023
Value: $57,000
Fehr & Peers Role: Prime
Key Personnel: Bruno Lertora, Julie Morgan,
Mackenzie Watten
48 American Canyon Nexus Study | 5
Personnel
Julie Morgan AICP
Principal-in-Charge
Julie has 25 years of experience in a wide range
of transportation planning efforts, including
travel demand forecasting, long-range plan
development, and integrated transportation/land
use planning. She develops and applies travel
demand forecasting tools in all the major travel
demand software packages and manages
projects ranging from long-range city-wide
circulation plans to traffic impact evaluations to
applications of innovative analytical methods for
quantifying the effects of neighborhood-scale
land use changes on personal travel behavior.
Julie has substantial experience with all the
major travel models used in the Bay Area and
the Central Valley. She has provided travel
demand forecasting services in support of
numerous planning and engineering projects,
including General Plans, infrastructure
development studies, and complex
environmental impact reviews. Julie has
developed substantial expertise in the field of
transportation impact fees, having completed
nexus studies in support of legally defensible fee
programs for dozens of California cities and
counties with populations ranging from 25,000
to 400,000, as well as for several regional
financing authorities that involve multiple local
jurisdictions.
Bruno Lertora
Project Manager
Bruno is a transportation planner with
experience in land use planning, traffic
operations, and active transportation planning.
As a project manager and analyst, he has
participated in and managed multiple
transportation impact fee nexus studies across
the Bay Area for regional authorities and several
cities, covering nexus methodology, demand
and land-use inputs, planning-level cost
updates, external funding credits, and fee
schedule recalibration by land use. He is familiar
with Mitigation Fee Act requirements and recent
case law, and is a clear, bilingual communicator
(English/Spanish) who aligns technical analysis
with policy direction and stakeholder priorities.
For American Canyon, Bruno brings recent,
directly relevant experience managing
transportation impact fee nexus updates,
including the Solano Transportation Authority
regional fee program, which draws on the same
Solano-Napa Activity-Based Model that covers
American Canyon. He will lead day-to-day
coordination with City staff, right-size the
technical effort to the City's needs and keep the
study on schedule and within budget.
49 American Canyon Nexus Study | 6
Mackenzie Watten PTP
Technical Advisor
Mackenzie (“Mac”) leads Fehr & Peers’ Travel
Behavior Forecasting Discipline Group, bringing
a measured, analytical, and thoughtful approach
to understanding how people move from place
to place. His recognized expertise has led to his
ITE leadership positions on the ITE Post-COVID
Travel Behavior Task Force and the Data
Committee, where he is investigating travel
behavior data availability, quality, procedures,
standards, sources, and tools. He has over 15
years of experience contributing his forecasting
travel demand forecasting expertise to a wide
range of complex transportation projects across
the country and around the world. Mac helps
clients address tough questions using data,
models, and other tools to understand travel
behavior and inform planning efforts. He is
always thinking about what comes next, helping
clients and colleagues alike address and plan for
uncertainty.
Mac has worked extensively across the state of
California, developing and applying trip and
activity-based models at regional and local
scales for a wide range of projects, including
transit infrastructure planning, smart growth
planning, land use modeling, environmental
impact assessments, and highway planning. His
history of successfully guiding teams through
tough projects has resulted in a deep level of
trust from clients, who, along with his
colleagues, appreciate his candor, thoughtful
insight, and affable demeanor.
Ashlee Takushi EIT, RSP1
Project Analyst &
Regional Advisor
Ashlee is a transportation planner with
experience in multimodal safety planning,
complete streets design, and long-range
transportation. As an active member of Fehr &
Peers' Safety Discipline Group and a board
member of the ITE San Francisco Bay Area
Section, she brings a collaborative, communityinformed perspective to identifying transportation needs and advancing wellsupported infrastructure investments.
For American Canyon, Ashlee brings direct,
current experience leading the City's Complete
Streets Safety Assessment and Engineering &
Traffic Survey Update, along with related
regional planning efforts including the NVTA
Regional & Local Vision Zero Plan, NVTA
Countywide Transportation Plan Update, and
Jefferson Corridor Transportation Safety and
Connectivity Plan. As Project Analyst and
Regional Advisor, she will draw on this working
knowledge of the City's and County's recent
planning efforts to help ground the
transportation facility needs and project list in
locally supported priorities.
50 American Canyon Nexus Study | 7
References
DALE DENNIS
Program Manager | East Contra Costa Regional
Fee & Financing Authority
255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553
[email protected] | (925) 595-4587
Associated Project(s): East Contra Costa
Regional Fee & Finance Authority
Comprehensive Fee Update.
MATT KELLY
Director of Planning | Contra Costa
Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Rd, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
[email protected] | (925) 256-4730
Associated Project(s): CCTA East County
Integrated Transit, CCTA Countywide
Transportation Plan, SB 743 and VMT Mitigation
Framework.
LAETITIA GALEAZZI
Senior Civil Engineer | City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected] | (925) 671-5252
Associated Project(s): Pleasant Hill
Transportation Impact Fee & CIP Update.
JASPER ALVE
Senior Project Manager | Solano Transportation
Authority
One Harbor Center, Suite 130, Suisun City, CA
94585
[email protected] | (707) 399-3204
Associated Project(s): STA Regional Impact Fee
Update.
History
During the past three years, Fehr & Peers has
completed one acquisition. In February 2026,
Fehr & Peers acquired Safe Streets Research &
Consulting, a safety research firm based in
Portland, Oregon. Safe Streets' five-person team
strengthens our already robust safety practice
by adding national expertise in crash data
analysis, Safe System policy, data science, and
federal research design and evaluation.
Additional details about the acquisition are
confidential.
Legal Challenges
Fehr & Peers are not currently involved in any
active litigation matters. The firm is not aware of
any pending legal proceedings that would impair
its ability to perform the services contemplated
under this agreement. Fehr & Peers maintains
the professional, financial, and staffing resources
necessary to fulfill its contractual commitments
and provide uninterrupted service to its clients.
Fiscal Viability
Fehr & Peers has not filed for bankruptcy,
receivership, or insolvency protection, nor has
any such proceeding been filed against the firm
within the past ten (10) years. The firm is
financially stable and possesses the resources
necessary to successfully perform and complete
the services required under this agreement.
Established in 1985, Fehr & Peers is a nationally
recognized transportation consulting firm with
more than 400 professionals in 24 offices
across the United States. The firm's balance
sheet is exceptionally strong, with a current
liquidity factor exceeding 300 percent and a
$2,000,000 line of credit. Fehr & Peers has the
financial strength, resources, and capability to
finance and complete contracted work in a
satisfactory manner.
51 American Canyon Nexus Study | 8
Technical Project Approach
Understanding &
Approach
Understanding & methodology
The preparation of an impact fee program
involves three integrated components:
The technical and analytical component, which
defines the fee metric (e.g., trip or VMT basis),
updates future growth estimates to a
consistent horizon year based on the latest
General Plan and development forecasts,
identifies and screens capital improvements,
updates planning-level cost estimates, and
calculates maximum justified fees with clear,
reproducible methods.
The legal and policy component, in which we
support the City’s compliance with the
Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) and other recent
state legislation such as AB 3177 and AB 602,
documenting findings of reasonable
relationship and rough proportionality, and
addressing recent case law (including } ÃÞÞŦ⁰
/ ç ħáŦç ³9Ú5 ç š¸ ™ç and . ħÉÚ™Éá©Ná™ħùŦšÞŦø⁰
⁰/ ÉŦç ³v ¸ ŦŦÞšùç á), as well as clarifying
policies for credits, exemptions, and fair-share
methodologies.
The administration and implementation
component, which gives the City clear
procedures for collecting, accounting for, and
annually reporting fees consistent with the
Mitigation Fee Act, along with implementation
guidance and documentation that City staff can
apply and defend as development occurs.
American Canyon’s traffic and transportation
impact fee program has been in place since
1999 and the most recent update was prepared
in 2015. Fehr & Peers has supported various
jurisdictions of similar sizes to American
Canyon on their nexus study and impact fee
program. We will leverage our team’s
knowledge on developing reasonable land use
assumptions and understanding the
development pipeline with the current General
Plan information to ground the nexus analysis in
locally accepted growth projections. This
familiarity lets us translate General Plan
assumptions into fee service units efficiently
and focus effort on where methods or data
materially affect fee outcomes. We also
understand that the City's new General Plan
establishes updated multimodal level of service
and design standards, and our approach to the
existing deficiencies and facility standard
analysis will be grounded in these updated
standards.
Given that context and the current legal, policy,
and market environment, our approach for the
2026 American Canyon Nexus Study and Fee
Program Update is to refresh rather than
rebuild the technical foundation, while placing
added emphasis on legal defensibility and
documentation, and on working with City staff
to evaluate whether methodology changes
would benefit the program. Concretely, in
coordination with City of American Canyon
staff, we will confirm whether updates are
needed to key methodologies—such as the fee
metric and dwelling unit equivalent (DUE)
framework, whether and how to incorporate
VMT in the fee calculation process, and how
the fee is structured and applied across
development types.
Our detailed scope of work is outlined in the
next section, following the RFP's overall task
order and naming. We look forward to working
closely with City of American Canyon staff in
refining this approach so that it aligns with their
priorities, schedule, and budget. Checkpoint
meetings are embedded at key decision points
to keep decisions timely and the effort on
schedule.
52 American Canyon Nexus Study | 9
Approach to work plan
For consistency with the scope of work
outlined in the RFP, our approach to the
American Canyon Transportation Impact Fee
Nexus Study and Fee Program Update is
described below. To achieve the City of
American Canyon's goals as we understand
them, we have made minor adjustments to the
RFP's task descriptions, including consolidating
fee program administration into its own
dedicated task and integrating the existing
deficiencies and level of service analysis
directly into the transportation facility needs
task. This entire approach is flexible and can be
adapted based on input from City staff.
Scope of Work
Task 1. Project Initiation,
Legal & Policy Framework
Review
Fehr & Peers will attend a virtual kickoff
meeting with City staff from Public Works,
Planning, and the City Attorney’s office. The
purpose of this meeting will be to confirm the
overall objectives of the fee study, refine the
scope of work, and identify key policy
considerations that may influence the analytical
approach. A central topic of discussion will be
the structure of the fee program, including:
1. Linkage to policies related to VMT and
multimodal infrastructure per the City’s
General Plan Update and the potential
for integrating VMT-based fees within
the nexus study;
2. A fee structure that balances flexibility
while maintaining a clear and defensible
nexus between development impacts
and fee-supported improvements;
3. Whether the existing fee structure is
functioning effectively; and
4. Options for Nexus Methodology.
This will also include consideration of recent
legal developments and statutory requirements
that may influence fee design, including Sheetz
v. County of El Dorado (2024), Building
Industry Association (BIA) v. City of Patterson
(2026), AB 602, and other pending or enacted
legislation or legal decisions at the time of
project initiation. Regarding the VMT
considerations, we will discuss with City staff
and attorney the various ways that VMT can be
incorporated into a fee program; this can range
from using a development project’s VMT to
calculate that project’s fee, all the way to
structuring the entire fee program around the
goal of VMT reduction. The considerations will
be discussed with staff and attorney so they
can make an informed decision about the most
appropriate way to incorporate VMT concepts
into the City of American Canyon’s program.
53 American Canyon Nexus Study | 10
As part of this task, Fehr & Peers will prepare a
detailed project schedule, identify data needs,
and review existing City documents. The
outcome of this stage will be a refined work
plan, if applicable, and data request that
reflects the decisions made during the kickoff
process. We will review the 2015 City of
American Canyon Traffic Impact Fee Nexus
Study and local policy documents, including
American Canyon’s 2040 General Plan, Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), Active
Transportation Plan, and Complete Streets
policies. We will also review other applicable
documents and reports such as the Napa Valley
Transportation Authority (NVTA) Highway 29
Multimodal Project, NVTA’s Transit Plan, and
the Annual and five-year Mitigation Fee Act
reports, as needed.
Deliverables: Information request, scope and
schedule refinement (as needed), and brief
written summary of the policies and how they
may be integrated within the updated Nexus
Study.
Task 2. Growth Forecast &
Land Use Assumptions
The next stage of the analysis will focus on
defining the amount and type of growth that
will occur within the City over the planning
horizon. The Solano Napa Activity-Based
Model (SNABM) maintains a set of growth
projections for use in conducting transportation
planning studies, aligned with regional
projections prepared by ABAG. Fehr & Peers
will refer to the SNABM growth projections
contained within the current version of the
travel demand model, which reflects the
growth forecasts assumed in the American
Canyon General Plan Update, and will extract
the data relevant to the City. We will compile
base-year development by land use; reconcile
it with available pipeline information, including
projects that are already committed to the
current fee levels or that are otherwise exempt
from the fee; and align assumptions with
current RHNA allocations, accessory dwelling
unit (second unit) trends, and institutional uses.
We will coordinate with City staff to discuss
whether there may be a consideration around
establishing separate fee zones or geographic
benefit districts; for the purposes of this scope,
we have assumed that the fee program will
remain at the citywide level.
As part of the scope, we will convene a
coordination meeting with City of American
Canyon staff to review preliminary baseline and
growth projections, confirm data sources, and
agree on the method for converting land use to
transportation demand. Once the future growth
potential is defined, we will develop a set of
factors to convert those land uses into Dwelling
Unit Equivalents (DUEs) and/or VMT-based
demand factors. These factors typically
account for components such as trip
generation rates, average trip lengths, the
likelihood for diverted/pass-by trips, and
sometimes other elements such as proximity to
other compatible uses or transit facilities. We
will develop DUE and/or VMT factors for this
study based on inputs and outputs from the
travel demand model, as well as industry
standard reference materials and factors used
in other fee programs. These factors will be
reviewed with the team and will be used later in
the fee calculations. Based on the growth
forecast and General Plan buildout
assumptions, we will also recommend a
planning horizon for the fee program that aligns
with the City's General Plan Update and
available development capacity.
Deliverables: Summary of growth forecast and
land use assumptions and agreed approach for
converting land use data to measure facility
demand.
54 American Canyon Nexus Study | 11
Task 3. Transportation
Facility Needs & Project List
Fehr & Peers will work with City staff to identify
the transportation facilities needed to support
growth. We will review the current list and cost
assumptions, and we will update the
improvements list by drawing from existing
planning documents, such as American
Canyon’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP),
Active Transportation Plan, relevant TIAs and
corridor studies, and the other documents
listed in the RFP; it is not anticipated that it
would be necessary to define new projects
separate from those existing documents. We
will also offer guidance on project inclusion so
that the improvement list reflects multimodal
priorities.
This base scope of work assumes that most of
the capital improvements that will be included
in the transportation impact fee already have
some level of cost estimates prepared. Fehr &
Peers will perform high-level updates to those
transportation project cost estimates, such as
applying an escalation index or adjustments to
reflect scope refinements at the direction of
City staff; detailed and comprehensive updates
to project costs, such as preparation of brand
new cost estimates or significant changes to
project scopes that require a substantial level
of effort to generate new costs, are not
assumed as part of the base scope of work and
are included as part of Optional Task 7.
Given the evolving legal landscape surrounding
development impact fees, including recent
rulings such as Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
(2024) and BIA v. City of Patterson (2026),
Fehr & Peers will emphasize risk management
and legal considerations in the development of
the transportation project list and nexus
analysis. These legal decisions underscore the
importance of clearly demonstrating the
proportional relationship between new
development and the need for and cost of
transportation improvements. As a result, this
scope anticipates carefully defining and
explaining the need for the transportation
project list, including documentation of project
purpose, growth-related need, and benefit to
new development, as well as documenting how
the projects support transportation objectives
in the adopted City policies.
An important element of this stage will be
identifying and accounting for existing
deficiencies in the City’s infrastructure
systems. Fehr & Peers will prepare a map of
existing transportation deficiencies based on
available traffic data (including existing or prior
traffic counts) and prior work completed for
the General Plan Update and Active
Transportation Plan. Fehr & Peers will use the
City's newly adopted 2040 General Plan
multimodal level of service and design
standards as the basis for identifying existing
facility standards and defining the proposed
facility standards that will apply to future
development. This mapping will be used to
distinguish between existing deficiencies and
growth-related needs and to support
documentation of nexus findings. Given that
the City has recently completed substantial
citywide planning processes, this scope
assumes that the collection of additional new
traffic data beyond what is already available
from those planning documents will not be
necessary; such data collection could be added
later as an optional task if it is found to be
needed.
Deliverables: List and map of transportation
projects, including existing deficiencies.
55 American Canyon Nexus Study | 12
Task 4. Nexus Analysis, Fee
Methodology & Cost
Allocation
Building on the prior tasks, Fehr & Peers will
develop the nexus analysis that establishes the
required relationship between new
development, the need for transportation
capital improvements, and the fees charged to
development. This analysis will quantify the
extent to which new development contributes
to the need for infrastructure improvements
and will allocate the costs of those
improvements accordingly.
As noted under Task 1, we believe that the work
that has already been completed and
documented can provide a solid foundation for
the nexus analysis. For roadway improvements
included in the fee program, Fehr & Peers will
tier from this work by using the SNABM travel
demand model to conduct a select link analysis
to determine the proportion of traffic on each
link that is attributable to new development in
the city, which will then be used to define the
proportion of the project costs to be included
in the fee program.
For non-roadway facilities (e.g., improvements
to bicycle and pedestrian facilities), Fehr &
Peers will coordinate with City staff to evaluate
options for defining a defensible nexus. These
options may involve defining the nexus
consistent with the proportional population
growth occurring in the City or establishing a
nexus relationship based on City policies and
design standards. These topics will be
discussed with City staff before a final nexus
relationship is defined.
To align the fee program with SB 743 and the
City's VMT policies, we will discuss with City
staff options for characterizing the VMT effects
of the fee program. An option would be to
describe how the transportation project list
contributes to citywide VMT reduction goals,
framing fee payment as one way a
development project can support that goal
while clearly distinguishing this local
infrastructure-funding purpose from separate
CEQA VMT mitigation requirements. This
qualitative assessment would build on the VMT
analysis already completed for the General Plan
Update.
The City's current fee program calculates fees
for each project individually, based on the
project's estimated daily trip generation, rather
than through a fee schedule assigned by land
use category. Following completion of the
nexus analysis, Fehr & Peers will discuss with
City staff whether to retain this project-specific
approach, move toward a fee schedule
differentiated by land use category, or adopt
some hybrid of the two. Whichever approach is
selected, Fehr & Peers will identify the
maximum supportable fee using metrics such
as trip generation and/or VMT generation and
will document AB 602 findings as needed
depending on the residential methodology
selected. These calculations will represent the
maximum fee that could be charged;
policymakers may decide to set fees at less
than the maximum to support other City policy
goals. Fehr & Peers will develop these fees in
alignment with applicable policy and legislative
requirements.
Deliverables: Table summary of fair share
calculations for vehicle facilities and discussion
of multi-modal transportation improvements,
table summary of fee calculations, draft fee
schedule, Excel-based fee calculation model.
56 American Canyon Nexus Study | 13
Task 5. Fee Program
Administration
Based on our understanding, the current fee
program has been functioning smoothly from
an administrative standpoint, with no
significant pain points identified in areas such
as fee collection or credits. As part of this task,
Fehr & Peers will work with City staff to confirm
and, where needed, formalize the
administrative provisions that will accompany
the updated fee program, including fee
calculation and collection, credits and
reimbursements, exemptions or reductions,
and special treatment for specific project
types. We will also confirm the approach for
annual inflation adjustments, and annual and
five-year reporting procedures. We anticipate
carrying forward the current administrative
approach with minimal changes where it
continues to serve the City well, while
identifying and documenting adjustments
needed to stay consistent with the updated
nexus methodology.
Deliverables: Brief memorandum summarizing
fee program administration and
implementation recommendations, Excelbased annual reporting and tracking template.
Task 6. Documentation,
Outreach & Public Hearings
Fehr & Peers will document the technical
analysis and nexus findings from the prior tasks
in an Administrative Draft Nexus Report,
incorporating one round of consolidated City
staff review of the quantitative analysis and fee
schedules. Following that review, we will
prepare a Draft Nexus Study reflecting City
staff's direction, which will serve as the publicfacing document for the Planning Commission and public hearing process. We will then
prepare a Final Nexus Study reflecting one
round of consolidated comments received
during that review process, along with a brief
response to comments memorandum
summarizing how comments were addressed.
The final fee schedule will be incorporated into
and finalized alongside the Final Nexus Study.
In coordination with the City Attorney, Fehr &
Peers will be available to support the City
Attorney in the preparation of draft ordinance
or resolution exhibits and provide example fee
resolutions and ordinances from peer
jurisdictions for reference, if helpful.
To support the adoption process, Fehr & Peers
will meet with City staff to review the analysis
results and walk through allocations, fee
schedules, and key policy choices, and will
attend up to two virtual meetings with
development community stakeholders and
other City departments as needed. Fehr &
Peers will also prepare and deliver presentation
materials for, and attend, a Planning
Commission study session and a City Council
public hearing for adoption, designed to clearly
explain the nexus study, fee calculations, and
policy considerations. Should the City wish to
hold additional briefings, such as individual
council member briefings, we can support
those as an optional task.
57 American Canyon Nexus Study | 14
Deliverables: Administrative Draft Nexus
Report, Public Draft Nexus Report, Final Nexus
Report, final fee schedule, public hearing
presentation materials, response to comments
memorandum, electronic copies of all
deliverables in Word, Excel, and PDF formats.
Optional Task 7. New Project
Cost Estimates
As an optional task, Fehr & Peers can provide
planning-level cost estimates for some of the
projects in the fee program using industrystandard cost assumptions, comparable project data, and/or appropriate unit cost factors. This
task could be undertaken if cost information is
unavailable, incomplete, or requires substantial
changes. If City of American Canyon staff
decide that a more detailed and
comprehensive refresh of the cost estimates is
warranted, we can engage a local
civil/structural engineering partner to develop
cost estimates grounded in recent unit costs,
bid histories, and regional pricing.
Proposed Schedule
Our detailed schedule for the proposed scope
of work can be found in Appendix B.
58 Appendices
Appendix A.
Staff Resumes
59 Appendix A
Julie Morgan, AICP
Principal & Director of Operations | Principal-in-Charge About
Julie has 25 years of experience in a wide range of transportation planning efforts, including travel demand forecasting, long-range plan development, and integrated transportation/land use planning. She develops and applies travel demand forecasting tools in all the major travel demand software packages and manages projects ranging from long-range city-wide circulation plans to traffic impact evaluations to applications of innovative analytical methods for quantifying the effects of neighborhood-scale land use changes on personal travel behavior.
Julie has substantial experience with all the major travel models used in the Bay Area and the Central Valley. She has provided travel demand forecasting services in support of numerous planning and engineering projects, including General Plans, infrastructure development studies, and complex environmental impact reviews.
Julie has developed substantial expertise in the field of transportation impact fees, having completed nexus studies in support of legally defensible fee programs for dozens of California cities and counties with populations ranging from 25,000 to 400,000, as well as for several regional financing authorities that involve multiple local jurisdictions.
Relevant Project Experience
Solano County TIF Nexus Study (Solano County, CA)
Fehr & Peers was a key member of the consulting team charged with developing the first regional transportation impact fee program in Solano County. A successful regional fee program requires cooperation among many local stakeholders, and developing such a program requires thorough technical analysis, compliance with legal mandates, and sensitivity to important local political and economic issues.
Fehr & Peers and the rest of the consultant team developed a comprehensive approach to engaging the key stakeholders in a collaborative and informed decision-making process. Fehr & Peers staff were responsible for all the technical analysis required to establish the necessary nexus relationships between the capital improvements to be funded and the amount of the fee. This effort required extensive use of the Solano-Napa regional travel demand model, combined with the local knowledge and transportation planning expertise of several Fehr & Peers staff.
East Contra Costa Regional Impact Fee (Contra Costa County, CA) The East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Finance Authority is a regional joint powers agency, involving four incorporated cities and the County, that establishes transportation impact fees and uses the revenue to construct major regional infrastructure projects in eastern Contra Costa County. The Authority has been very successful in delivering projects, having collected more than $200 million over the life of the fee program and used those funds to construct major highway and arterial infrastructure projects that have benefited all the East County communities.
Education
M.S., Transportation
Engineering, University of
California at Berkeley, 1996
M.C.P., City & Regional
Planning (transportation
planning emphasis), University
of California at Berkeley, 1996
Registrations
American Institute of Certified
Planners (015698)
Affiliations
Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE): Associate
American Planning Association
(APA): Member
Women’s Transportation
Seminar (WTS): Member
Presentations
Advanced CEQA Training on
VMT Implementation, California
Association of Environmental
Professionals, 2019
Evaluating the Effectiveness of
TDM Strategies for SB743
Application, Bay Area Regional
Modeling Working Group, 2019
Estimating a Disrupted Future:
Measuring Emerging Trends in
Transportation, 3 Revolutions
Conference, Davis, 2018
Transportation Impact Fees in a
Multimodal Age, Growth &
Infrastructure Consortium
National Conference, Portland,
2015
60 Appendix A
Fehr & Peers has worked with the Authority since 2000. We have conducted three major updates to the fee program and have collaborated extensively with staff from all the member jurisdictions on issues related to fee application and administrative processes. We are currently working with the Authority and member jurisdiction staff to develop a prioritization structure to set guidelines for using the fee revenues to deliver the next set of priority projects within each of the jurisdictions.
West Contra Costa Transportation Impact Fee (Contra Costa County, CA) Fehr & Peers served as the prime consultants for the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) in preparing a comprehensive nexus study to update the West County impact fee program. The fee program is a key mechanism to ensure that future development pays its fair share toward necessary transportation improvements. The West County fee had not been substantially updated since 2005, and the fee levels had not kept pace with inflation. Julie led a comprehensive nexus study, involving extensive engagement with the six local agencies, determination of the fair-share nexus relationships, and discussion of policy and implementation options through many presentations to the WCCTAC Board and the Technical Advisory Committee. Key questions were about financial feasibility, the effects on housing affordability, and the methods for ensuring equitable distribution of fee revenues amongst the member jurisdictions.
The final fee was successfully adopted by all the West County jurisdictions.
City of Brisbane TIF Nexus Study (Brisbane, CA)
Fehr & Peers conducted a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study for the City of Brisbane to calculate fees that the City could collect to fund capital improvements necessary to support new development within the City. The project team coordinated with the city to outline key assumptions, including a methodology based on three separate districts/zones that represent key areas of development within the city. Fehr & Peers used a “select link” analysis to identify the proportional contribution to the necessary improvements by land use and calculate a maximum fee rate for each land use type and district.
Additional Impact Fee Experience
• Oakland Impact Fee Nexus Study (Oakland, CA)
• East Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (Dublin, CA)
• Pleasanton Impact Fee (Pleasanton, CA)
• Pittsburg Fee & Range Road Analysis (Pittsburg, CA)
• Antioch Transportation Impact Fee (Antioch, CA)
• Contra Costa County AOB Services (Brentwood, CA)
• Leona Quarry Traffic Impact Fee (Oakland, CA)
• Lodi IMFP Update (Lodi, CA)
• Ukiah Valley Impact Fee Program (Ukiah, CA)
• El Cerrito Traffic Impact Fee (El Cerrito, CA)
• Napa Circulation Element Update & TIF (Napa County, CA) • Stanislaus County RTIF (Stanislaus County, CA)
• Corte Madera Impact Fee Study (Corte Madera, CA)
• Fairfield TDM Development & Fee Study (Fairfield, CA) • Moraga Impact Fee Program Advisory Services (Moraga, CA) • Santa Cruz County TIF Study (Santa Cruz, CA)
61 Appendix A
Bruno Lertora
Senior Transportation Planner | Project Manager
About
Bruno is a transportation planner with experience in land use planning, traffic operations, and active transportation planning. As a project manager and analyst, he has participated in and managed multiple transportation impact fee nexus studies across the Bay Area for regional authorities and several cities, covering nexus methodology, demand and land-use inputs, planning-level cost updates, external funding credits, and fee schedule recalibration by land use. He is familiar with Mitigation Fee Act requirements and recent case law, and is a clear, bilingual communicator (English/Spanish) who aligns technical analysis with policy direction and stakeholder priorities.
Bruno brings current, on-the-ground familiarity with Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda from Fehr & Peers’ recent work on each city’s Housing Element (including RHNA allocations, land-use assumptions, development pipelines, and VMT analysis). He will leverage these accepted datasets to anchor growth inputs to a consistent 2050 horizon, ensuring internal consistency across the three jurisdictions and a transparent bridge between land-use planning and the fee program. Bruno will lead coordination with LFFA and city staff, right sizing the technical effort, and keeping the study on schedule and within budget.
Relevant Project Experience
STA RTIF Nexus Study Update (Solano County, CA)
Fehr & Peers has assisted the Solano Transportation Authority with the countywide Regional Transportation Impact Fee program for more than ten years. We conducted the nexus analysis that served as the foundation for establishing the initial program, and we have helped STA with several program updates to accommodate changes in regional growth patterns and transportation investment priorities. In this most recent program update, which Bruno is managing, we are conducting a Nexus analysis to support the addition of four new transportation projects to the program.
San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee (San Ramon, CA)
Fehr & Peers helped to update the transportation impact fee program for the City of San Ramon which will achieve the city's objectives of a strong and effective program to fund important transportation infrastructure throughout the city. The focus of our work is to define a program that is legally defensible, effective in generating funds for critical transportation projects, economically feasible within the context of local development constraints, and easy to administer. Fehr & Peers' work efforts include helping to develop a comprehensive list of multimodal transportation improvement projects needed to serve the demands of new development, establishing the magnitude of existing deficiencies in Pleasanton’s transportation system, calculating the fair share contributions from new growth, and helping the team to document the findings and conclusions in a legally defensible manner.
Education
B.S., Transportation & Industrial
Engineering, Pontifical Catholic
University of Chile, 2019
Study Abroad Program,
University of California at
Berkeley
Software
Python
Synchro
ArcGIS
62 Appendix A
Lamorinda TIF Nexus Study Update (Lafayette, CA)
Fehr & Peers is supporting the Lamorinda Development Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Update for the Lamorinda Fee & Finance Authority (LFFA) and the Cities of Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda. Building on the region's existing fee program, we are helping the agency evaluate policy, legal, and technical considerations to ensure continued compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) and recent legislation, including AB 602, AB 3177, and the Sheetz v. County of El Dorado decision. Our team is developing a consistent baseline and growth forecast through 2050 to understand future transportation demand and inform the update of transportation improvements needed to serve anticipated growth. We are also reassessing the nexus methodology, including the use of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and project trips as potential impact measures, and refining the capital improvement and funding framework to support a legally defensible fee program.
The study will ultimately establish updated maximum justified fees, refine jurisdictional allocation formulas, and provide the technical foundation for adoption of updated nexus reports by the participating agencies. Bruno serves as Project Manager for this effort.
East Dublin TIF Update for Housing Element (Dublin, CA) Fehr & Peers is working with the City of Dublin on their East Dublin TIF Update, for which Bruno is serving as the Project Manager. The project team is reviewing model land use inputs and comparing them to the Housing Element data, using that information to update existing processes and documentation as needed.
Lafayette Housing Element Update EIR & VMT Analysis (Lafayette, CA) Fehr & Peers assisted the City of Lafayette in preparing the housing element and safety evacuation analysis component of the General Plan Update. Bruno led efforts for this project as the Project Manager.
City of Pleasanton Housing Element Update & Transportation Impact Analysis (Pleasanton, CA)
Bruno was the Lead Analyst responsible for the transportation impact analysis prepared for the update to the City of Pleasanton’s Housing Element Update. As part of the work, Fehr & Peers evaluated the implications to VMT for implementation of the Housing Element Update. Where significant adverse impacts related to various housing sites were identified, mitigation measures were developed and proposed. In addition to the impact of the HEU on VMT the effects of newly generated traffic on intersection levels of service were also assessed.
Intersection LOS was evaluated for 50 intersections under multiple scenarios using the local and regional travel demand models.
City of Antioch Housing Element Update & SB 743 Implementation (Antioch, CA) Bruno served as Project Manager for the City of Antioch’s Housing Element Update and SB 743 Implementation project. Fehr & Peers was the transportation consultant who prepared the technical analysis supporting the City’s update to the General Plan’s Housing Element. As part of this work, the firm prepared an analysis supporting the development of housing plans and programs that will result in beneficial VMT outcomes. In a separate but linked piece of work, Fehr & Peers prepared the analysis and updates to the City’s transportation guidelines for the full implementation of SB 743 and the use of VMT to evaluate projects within the city. 63 Appendix A
Mackenzie “Mac” Watten, PTP
Associate | Technical Advisor
About
Mac leads Fehr & Peers’ Travel Behavior Forecasting Discipline Group, bringing a measured, analytical, and thoughtful approach to understanding how people move from place to place. His recognized expertise has led to his ITE leadership positions on the ITE Post-COVID Travel Behavior Task Force and the Data Committee, where he is investigating travel behavior data availability, quality, procedures, standards, sources, and tools. He has over 15 years of experience contributing his forecasting travel demand forecasting expertise to a wide range of complex transportation projects across the country and around the world. Mac helps clients address tough questions using data, models, and other tools to understand travel behavior and inform planning efforts. He is always thinking about what comes next, helping clients and colleagues alike address and plan for uncertainty.
Mac has worked extensively across the state of California, developing and applying trip and activity-based models at regional and local scales for a wide range of projects, including transit infrastructure planning, smart growth planning, land use modeling, environmental impact assessments, and highway planning. His history of successfully guiding teams through tough projects has resulted in a deep level of trust from clients, who, along with his colleagues, appreciate his candor, thoughtful insight, and affable demeanor.
Relevant Project Experience
Solano County RTIF Nexus Study Update (Solano County, CA) Fehr & Peers has assisted the Solano Transportation Authority with the countywide Regional Transportation Impact Fee program for more than ten years. We conducted the nexus analysis that served as the foundation for establishing the initial program, and we have helped STA with several program updates to accommodate changes in regional growth patterns and transportation investment priorities. In this most recent program update, we conducted a Nexus analysis to support the addition of four new transportation projects to the program and applied the recently updated Solano-Napa Activity-Based Model to establish new countywide growth projections. Mac served as the Technical Lead for this effort.
Additional Experience
• San Ramon TIF Nexus Study (San Ramon, CA)
• East Dublin TIF Update for Housing Element (Dublin, CA) • Benicia Housing Element Update (Benicia, CA)
• Lafayette Housing Element Update EIR (Lafayette, CA)
• Napa County Housing & Safety Element Updates (Napa County, CA) • Caltrain Business Plan (Bay Area, CA)
• Vision California (Statewide, CA)
Education
B.S. Civil Engineering,
University of California at
Berkeley, 2009
Registrations
Professional Transportation
Planner (793)
Affiliations
Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE): Member
Presentations
Transforming Predictive Models
into Decision Frameworks:
Evidence from San Francisco
Bay Area Rail Transit Models
(co-authored), Transportation
Research Record, 2020.
64 Appendix A
Ashlee Takushi, EIT, RSP1
Senior Transportation Planner | Project Analyst & Regional Advisor About
Ashlee is drawn to transportation engineering because of the potential to improve communities by understanding their local goals and needs, while offering innovative ideas that have been successfully implemented in other regions by similar community types. Since joining Fehr & Peers, Ashlee has worked on a variety of projects, gaining experience and interest in transportation impact analyses, pedestrian planning and design, and citywide safety planning.
She has supported agencies in developing practical, community-informed strategies that connect long-range growth with multimodal transportation improvements. As an active member in Fehr & Peers’ Safety Discipline Group and a board member of the ITE San Francisco Bay Area Section, Ashlee brings a collaborative perspective to identifying transportation needs and advancing investments that support safer, more connected, and well-planned communities.
Relevant Project Experience
American Canyon Complete Streets Safety Assessment (American Canyon, CA) Fehr & Peers works with the Safe Transportation Research & Education Center (SafeTREC) at UC Berkeley to deliver Complete Streets safety assessments for jurisdictions throughout California every year. The project includes conducting interviews with local staff to provide a safety policy benchmarking assessment, reviewing historic collision data to understand key safety issues, completing field visit safety audits with local staff, and delivering a summary report with project recommendations. Ashlee served as a Project Manager for these assessments.
American Canyon Engineering & Traffic Survey Update (American Canyon, CA) Fehr & Peers assisted the City of American Canyon with updating their 2017 speed surveys. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the adequacy of existing speed limits for various roadway segments within the city and develop recommendations based on that analysis. In addition, Fehr & Peers conduct Wejo data analysis to assist the city with pre-AB 43 implementation. Work conducted for this effort includes data collection and review of 17 road segments with city limits, analysis of that data, and subsequent documentation in the form of a Final Speed Survey Report. Ashlee served as Project Manager for this effort.
Additional Experience
• NVTA Regional & Local Vision Zero Plan (Napa Valley, CA) • NVTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update (Napa Valley, CA) • Jefferson Corridor Transportation Safety and Connectivity Plan (Napa, CA) • Modesto Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Update (Modesto, CA) Education
B.S., Civil Engineering,
California Polytechnic State
University at San Luis Obispo,
2017
Registrations
Engineer in Training, State of
California (165048)
Road Safety Professional (962)
Leadership & Affiliations
Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE), SF Bay Area
Chapter: Board Member
65 Appendices
Appendix B.
Proposed Schedule
66 Schedule for the Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study & Fee Program Update
Project Start Date: 8/10/2026 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
W eek Starting
1-Aug1-Sep1-Oct1-Nov1-Dec1-Jan1-Feb1-Mar1-Apr1-May1-Jun1-Jul Tasks Days Start End Type
Task 1 - Project Initiation and Legal & Policy Framework Review Project Kickoff Meeting 5 10-Aug-26 14-Aug-26 Meeting
Revised Scope & Schedule (if needed) 10 10-Aug-26 21-Aug-26 Work Period Consolidated Information Request 10 10-Aug-26 21-Aug-26 Work Period Legal and Policy Framwork Review Summary 20 10-Aug-26 4-Sep-26 Deliverable Task 2 - Growth Forecast and Land Use Assumptions
Growth Projection Estimates Compilation 20 24-Aug-26 18-Sep-26 Work Period Assessment of Methods to Link Land Use to Transportation Demand 20 24-Aug-26 18-Sep-26 Work Period Coordination Meeting to Review Growth Projection Estimates 5 21-Sep-26 25-Sep-26 Meeting Revision of Land Use Projections (if needed) 10 28-Sep-26 9-Oct-26 Work Period Growth Projections Summary Table & Agreed Approach for Tranportation Demand 10 28-Sep-26 9-Oct-26 Deliverable Task 3 - Transportation Facility Needs and Project List Evaluation of Project List Structure 15 12-Oct-26 30-Oct-26 Work Period Coordination Meeting to Define Project List Structure 10 26-Oct-26 6-Nov-26 Meeting Improvements/Categories List Update 25 26-Oct-26 27-Nov-26 Work Period Planning-Level Cost Estimates Update 30 30-Nov-26 8-Jan-27 Work Period Existing Deficiencies Mapping & Facility Standard Analysis 30 30-Nov-26 8-Jan-27 Work Period List of Proposed Improvements/Categories & Cost Estimates 10 18-Jan-27 29-Jan-27 Deliverable Task 4 - Nexus Analysis, Fee Methodology, and Cost Allocation Confirmation on Fee Calculation Methodology 5 1-Feb-27 5-Feb-27 Meeting Select Link Analysis 20 8-Feb-27 5-Mar-27 Work Period
Fee Calculations 10 8-Mar-27 19-Mar-27 Work Period
Draft Fee Schedule & Fee Calculation Model 15 22-Mar-27 9-Apr-27 Deliverable Task 5 - Fee Program Administration
Coordination Meeting on Administrative Provisions 5 8-Mar-27 12-Mar-27 Meeting Fee Program Administration Memorandum 11 12-Mar-27 26-Mar-27 Deliverable Task 6 - Documentation, Outreach, and Public Hearings
Coordination Meeting to Review Fee Schedule 5 12-Apr-27 16-Apr-27 Meeting Administrative Draft Report 15 19-Apr-27 7-May-27 Deliverable Public Draft Report 5 24-May-27 28-May-27 Deliverable
Planning Commission & Stakeholders Meetings 15 31-May-27 18-Jun-27 Meeting Final Report 5 21-Jun-27 25-Jun-27 Deliverable
Support Public Hearing for Report Adoption 10 28-Jun-27 10-Jul-27 Meeting
Notes:
Task Type Legend
Meeting
Work Period
Client Review
Deliverable
Appendix B 67
Julie Morgan
Principal-inCharge
Bruno Lertora
Project
Manager
Mackenzie
Watten
Technical
Advisor
Ashlee Takushi
Project Analyst
& Regional
Advisor
Project
Coordinator
(TBD)
Labor
Hours
Direct Labor
Costs
Direct Costs Total
Tasks B illing Rate $410 $235 $330 $230 $180
12 24 4 18 7 65 $17,280 $1,210 $18,490
8 12 12 24 7 63 $16,840 $1,180 $18,020
8 24 64 12 108 $25,800 $1,810 $27,610
12 32 12 72 16 144 $35,840 $2,510 $38,350
8 16 24 6 54 $13,640 $950 $14,590
24 48 4 48 16 140 $36,360 $2,550 $38,910
72 156 32 250 64 574 $145,760 $10,210 $155,970
Notes:
American Canyon Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study & Fee Program Update
Fehr & Peers
Task 2 - Growth Forecast and Land Use Assumptions
Task 1 - Project Initiation and Legal & Policy Framework Review Task 3 - Transportation Facility Needs and Project List Task 4 - Nexus Analysis, Fee Methodology, and Cost Allocation Task 6 - Documentation, Outreach, and Public Hearings
Task 5 - Fee Program Administration
Reimbursable E xpenses will cover travel expenses, production of presentation materials, and other direct costs.
Rates and staff are subject to change at any time, without notice, and within the total budget shown.
Total for Tasks 1-6
Actual billing rate at the time of service may vary depending on the final staffing plan at the time the project starts; the overall fee will not be exceeded.
Mileage is billed at the IRS rate plus 10 % handling fee. 68 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
STAFF REPORT
CONSENT
ITEM NUMBER: 5.
TITLE
Approve an Addendum to the Cer&fied General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) (SCH No. 2022070038) and Conduct Final Reading and Adop&on of the Hess/Laird Territory Special Study Pre-Zoning Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION
Waive final reading, read by &tle only, and adopt an Ordinance to approve Special Study Pre-Zoning for the Hess/Laird Territory consistent with the General Plan (American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 19.50) and approve an Addendum to the Cer&fied General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, finding the Ordinance consistent with the General Plan Program EIR.
CONTACT
Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director
Matthew Summers, City Attorney
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
The Hess/Laird property consists of approximately 281 acres and is located outside the City limits in unincorporated Napa County, east of State Route 29 and north of Watson Lane. In March 2026, the property owners ini&ated an applica&on with the Napa County Local Agency Forma&on Commission (LAFCO) to annex their property into the City of American Canyon A( ssessor Parcel Numbers 057- 090-065 and 057-090-066). A location map of the Hess/Laird property is included as Attachment 2.
On September 1, 2026, the City Council approved the first reading of an Ordinance approving PreZoning for the Hess/Laird Territory consistent with the General Plan (American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 19.50) If the final reading is approved, the Ordinance will become effec&ve 30 days later on October 15, 2026. A copy of the Ordinance is included as Attachment 1.
COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Organizational Effectiveness: "Deliver exemplary government services."
FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable due to zoning regulations that allow very limited land use potential. 69 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Affected Territory Special Study General Plan designa&on was evaluated in the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) (SCH# 2022070038). The implemen&ng Special Study Pre-Zoning, and contemplated LAFCO ac&ons are consistent with the General Plan, is a contemplated "Project Approval" under the Program EIR. Therefore, approval of the Pre-Zoning based on the Cer&fied General Plan Final EIR, which includes the Statement of Overriding Considera&ons and the Mi&ga&on Monitoring and Repor&ng Program, complies with CEQA. The City Council cer&fied the General Plan Final EIR by adop&on of Resolu&on No. 2025-37 on May 20, 2025.
A copy of the addendum is included as Exhibit C to Attachment 1.
COMMUNICATION
Level 0: No Further Public Communication Needed
ATTACHMENTS:
1._Ordinance_HLAT_PreZoning
2. Hess Laird Location Map
70 ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING SPECIAL STUDY PREZONING FOR THE HESS/LAIRD TERRITORY CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN (AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 19.50) WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65300 of the State Planning and Zoning Law, the City of American Canyon (City) has adopted a General Plan (the 2040 General Plan Update) to provide comprehensive long-range planning and a blueprint of the City’s future form, including land use and circulation maps that specify the roadway network and the distribution of types and intensities of land; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2025, the City Council of the City of American Canyon adopted Resolution No. 2025- 38 adopting the 2040 General Plan Update, including the “Future Study Area” designation of approximately 282 acres located northeast of the City of American Canyon in unincorporated Napa County, California. The property is known as the Hess/Laird Territory (hereafter the “Affected Territory”) and identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 057-090-065 and 057-090-066; and WHEREAS, in March 2026, Hess-Laird property owners initiated proceedings with the Local Area Formation Commission of Napa County (“LAFCO”) to annex the Hess-Laird Affected Territory into the City of American Canyon and the American Canyon Fire Protection District, with concurrent and coterminous amendment of the City of American Canyon’s Sphere of Influence (“SOI”), which requires an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Napa County (“Napa LAFCo”) for approval of the proposed reorganization (collectively, “Reorganization Activities”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 56375(a)(7) of the Government Code the City must pre-zone the Affected Territory as a condition to LAFCO’s approval of the proposed annexation; and WHEREAS, the City is lead agency and LAFCO is the responsible agency for the Reorganization Activities on the Affected Territory under California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 2000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding any annexation, under Government Code section 65860, the City is obligated to bring zoning into conformance with the Update General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to pre-zone the Affected Territory as a “special study zone” (“SSZ”) within the Special Study Zone District as described in American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 19.50, consistent with the 2040 General Plan Update and Government Code Section 65859; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the SSZ district is to: (a) allow properties to be zoned or Pre-Zoned until the City has completed appropriate planning studies to determine the types and intensities of land uses through an amendment of the City’s general plan; and (b) allow agricultural, grazing, open space and public uses within the district as interim uses; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Reorganization Activities will maintain the status quo of land use designations, zoning, infrastructure, and municipal services, including the 2040 General Plan Update’s “Future Study Area” designation and consistent SSZ pre-zoning. The SSZ pre-zoning is more restrictive than the County’s current industrial zoning, reducing rather than increasing land use intensity; and do not propose any development or other physical change to the Hess-Laird Property or propose any particular action affecting the environment; and
71 WHEREAS, on May 20, 2025, as the Lead Agency under the City Council of the City of American Canyon adopted Resolution No. 2025-37 certifying that the 2040 General Plan Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (“General Plan EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022070038) had been prepared in full compliance with CEQA and includes the Affected Territory at a program level of analysis, required mitigation measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and WHEREAS, for purposes of CEQA analysis the proposed Reorganization Activities and Pre-zoning are a project (Project); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project has been reviewed for consistency with the applicable General Plan, zoning, and other applicable land use regulations; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183 provide that projects which are consistent with the development density established by an existing General Plan, community plan, or zoning for which an EIR has been certified require no additional environmental review except as necessary to examine project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site; and WHEREAS, in connection with the proposed Project, an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (“Addendum”), a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department and attached as Exhibit C, has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and sections 15163-15164.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3) to determine whether any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed reorganization; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and considered the Addendum together with the General Plan EIR and the entire administrative record; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Affected Territory Pre-Zoning is a contemplated “Project Approval” under the General Plan EIR and the City is lead agency for reorganization actions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15367; and
WHEREAS, the Affected Territory is located in Napa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan District Zones D1 and D2; and
WHEREAS, allowable uses in the Special Study Pre-Zoning district, such as agricultural, grazing, open space and public uses are deemed “normally compatible” within the Napa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan District Zones D1 and D2 (Exhibit 5-2); and
WHEREAS, on July 30, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of American Canyon conducted a public hearing and unanimously recommended City Council approval of the ordinance; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council of the City of American Canyon on September 1, 2026, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard regarding the proposed Municipal Code amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon hereby adopts the Affected Territory Pre-Zoning to Special Study Zone as described in American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 19.50 based on the findings and depicted on Exhibit A and Exhibit B and attached hereto. 72 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The City Council finds based on the following evidence and as required by State Law on General Plan Amendments:
a. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest.
Pre-Zoning Special Study will achieve the project objectives listed in the Resolution recitals which include facilitating an orderly and public discussion, supported by technical analysis that will determine beneficial land uses in this area consistent with objectives in the American Canyon General Plan. Furthermore, permitting interim use of agriculture and open space uses demonstrates that the annexation is part of a longer-term, staged plan that avoids rushing the Affected Territories into development by maintaining agricultural resources until no longer needed.
b. The amendment is consistent with the purposes of this title, as set forth in Chapter 19.01, Authority, Purposes and Effects of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Pre-Zoning is consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to protect and promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, aesthetics, prosperity, and general welfare because the proposed Pre-Zoning regulations will maintain a low intensity of use prior to an orderly and transparent decision making process on optimal long-term land use or land uses in the Affected Territory.
SECTION 2. CEQA FINDINGS: The Affected Territory Special Study General Plan designation was evaluated in the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) (SCH# 2022070038).
Implementing Special Study Pre-Zoning and Reorganization Activities is a contemplated later “Project Approval” under the General Plan EIR.
Section 2.1 The Project is consistent with the land use designation, development density, applicable General Plan policies, and zoning applicable to the Project site.
Section 2.2 The City previously certified the General Plan EIR, which analyzed the environmental impacts associated with development contemplated by the General Plan, including development of the type and intensity proposed by the Project.
Section 2.3 The City finds that the Project will not result in significant environmental effects that are peculiar to the Project which were not analyzed in the certified General Plan EIR.
Section 2.4 The Project will not result in significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not adequately analyzed in the certified General Plan EIR.
Section 2.5 There is no substantial new information that was not known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified demonstrating that the Project would result in previously identified significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than disclosed in the prior EIR.
Section 2.6 All applicable mitigation measures adopted in connection with certification of the General Plan EIR that are relevant to the Project have been incorporated into the Project or otherwise will be implemented through existing City ordinances, development standards, permit conditions, or other uniformly applied policies.
Section 2.7 To the extent applicable, uniformly applied development policies, regulations, and standards adopted by the City substantially mitigate environmental effects associated with the Project. 73 Section 2.8 Accordingly, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183, no additional Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Negative Declaration is required because the Project is consistent with the development density established by the applicable General Plan and the certified General Plan EIR adequately addresses the environmental effects of the Project, subject only to implementation of applicable mitigation measures and uniformly applied development standards.
Section 2.9 The Addendum to the General Plan EIR was prepared for Project in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 2.10 Based on the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis in the Addendum, and in light of the record as a whole, none of the conditions described in Public Resources Code section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 or 15163 calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred. Specifically:
(1) No substantial changes are proposed by the Project that will require major revisions of the General EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which these actions are undertaken that will require major revisions of the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the General Plan EIR was certified as complete and the 2040 General Plan Update was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the General Plan EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the pre-zoning or Reorganization Activities, but the proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the General Plan EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Section 2.11 The City has considered the Addendum in connection with the previously approved General Plan EIR and hereby finds on the basis of the whole record before it that based on substantial evidence the Project will have no significant effect on the environment. The Project not authorize development beyond the land uses, densities, intensities, and development assumptions analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The City further finds that the Addendum fully discloses and analyzes the environmental effects of the Project and reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. 74 Section 2.12 Pursuant to the above findings, the City Council of the City of American Canyon determines that the 2040 General Plan Update Final General Plan EIR and MMRP, together with the Addendum (Exhibit C), satisfy all requirements of CEQA and are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed Pre-zoning the Affected Territory and Reorganization Activities and, therefore, hereby approves and adopts the Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Update Final General Plan EIR.
Section 2.13 The City Council hereby directs the Community Development Director or designee, to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines and the Public Resources Code in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21152 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15075 and 15094, as applicable.
SECTION 3. NAPA AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN. The Pre-Zoning that accommodates agricultural, grazing, open space and public uses are considered “normally compatible” within Zones D1 and D2 of the Napa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (NALUCP) (Exhibit 5-2). Furthermore, the PreZoning does not involve the types of airport impact concerns listed in Policy 2.3.1(a) which include:
(1) Noise: Locations exposed to potentially disruptive levels of aircraft noise.
The proposed uses are deemed “normally compatible” within Zones D1 and D2. (2) Safety: Areas where the risk of an aircraft accident poses heightened safety concerns for people and property on the ground.
Zones D1 and D2 present minimal aircraft accident hazards coupled with extremely low population densities permitted within the proposed Pre-Zoning.
(3) Airspace Protection: Places where height and various other land use characteristics need to be restricted in order to prevent creation of physical, visual, or electronic hazards to flight within the airspace required for operation of aircraft to and from the Airport.
The Affected Territory subject to the Pre-Zoning is approximately 1 mile at its closest point to the Napa Airport runway. The proposed agricultural, grazing, open space and public uses represent historical uses on the property and do not present a height characteristic that would impair physical, visual, or electronic hazards to flight within the airspace required for operation of aircraft to and from the Airport.
(4) Overflight: Locations where aircraft overflying can be intrusive and annoying to many people.
The proposed uses are very low in population density and deemed “normally compatible” within Zones D1 and D2.
For reasons explained above, it can be concluded with certainty that the Affected Territory Pre-Zoning would not affect Napa County airport operations and therefore referral to the Napa County Airport Land Use Commission is not required.
Furthermore, the applicant received a voluntary project referral finding of consistency with the NALUCP consistent with NALUCP Section 2.6.1(c), by the ALUC Executive Director. A copy of the consistency determination is included as Exhibit D to this Ordinance. 75 SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective effect 30 days after its final passage pursuant to Government Code section 36937.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance is based are located at the City Clerk's office located at 4831 Broadway, Suite 201, American Canyon, CA 94503. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk.
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, State of California, held on the 1st day of September, 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, State of California, held on the _________ day of ____________, ______, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_____________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ___________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk Matthew Summers, City Attorney
EXHIBITS
A. Pre-Zoning Map
B. Pre-Zoning District Regulations
C. General Plan EIR Addendum
D. Napa County Airport Land Use Consistency Determination 76 EXHIBIT A
Hess/Laird Territory Annexation Project Pre-Zoning Map
Legend
Special Study Zoning District
77 EXHIBIT B
PRE-ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Chapter 19.50 SPECIAL STUDY ZONE DISTRICT
19.50.010 Purpose.
The purpose of the special study zone district is to:
(A) Allow properties to be zoned or prezoned until the city has completed appropriate planning studies to determine the types and intensities of land uses through an amendment of the city's general plan.
(B) Allow agricultural, grazing, open space and public uses within the district as interim uses. (Res. 2008-105 § 4, 2008)
19.50.020 Applicability.
Properties designated as "special study zone" by the general plan shall be within the special study zone district. (Res. 2008-105 § 4, 2008)
19.50.030 Permitted uses.
Permitted uses shall be: agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses, except as provided in Section 19.12.040. (Res. 2008-105 § 4, 2008)
19.50.040 Conditionally permitted uses.
Any structure greater than ten thousand square feet shall be a conditionally permitted use. (Res. 2008-105 § 4, 2008)
78 451252.1
City of American Canyon
Pre-Zoning and Proposed Reorganization
Project
Addendum to 2040 General Plan Program EIR
State Clearinghouse Number 2022070038
July 2026
EXHIBIT C
79 Table of Contents
Addendum to 2040 General Plan Program EIR
State Clearinghouse Number 2022070038
PRELIMINARY DRAFT – SUBJECT TO REVISION i
451252.1
Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Project Summary ................................................................................................1
1.1 Overview ...............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address...........................................................................................2
1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number......................................................................................2
1.4 Project Location.....................................................................................................................2
1.5 Project Description................................................................................................................5
1.6 Prior Environmental Document ............................................................................................8 2 Addendum Criteria .........................................................................................................................9 3 Addendum Evaluation ..................................................................................................................10 4 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................................16 5 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................17 6 References....................................................................................................................................18 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ...............................................................................................3 Figure 2 Project Area ........................................................................................................4 Figure 3 Reorganization Activities Detail..........................................................................7 80 Introduction and Project Summary
Addendum to 2040 General Plan Program EIR
State Clearinghouse Number 2022070038 1
451252.1
1 Introduction and Project Summary
1.1 Overview
This document is an Addendum to the previously certified City of American Canyon 2040 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (“General Plan EIR”) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] Number 2022070038), prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the state CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). The 2040 General Plan Update includes the “Future Study Area” designation of approximately 282 acres located northeast of the City of American Canyon (“City”) in unincorporated Napa County, California. The property is known as the Hess-Laird Territory (the “Affected Territory”). The City seeks to pre-zone the Affected Territory as a “special study zone” (SSZ) within the Special Study Zone District as described in American Canyon Municipal Code (ACMC) Chapter 19.50, consistent with the 2040 General Plan Update and the City’s obligation to make zoning consistent with its General Plan under Government Code section 65860 (the “Project”).
Additionally, the Affected Territory owners submitted an application in March 2026 to the Local Area Formation Commission of Napa County (“LAFCO”) to seek annexation of the Affected Territory into the City and the American Canyon Fire Protection District, and concurrent amendment of the City’s and Fire Protection District’s Spheres of Influence (SOI) (collectively, “Reorganization Activities”), which also requires an application to the LAFCO. Section 56375(a)(7) of the Government Code requires that the City must pre-zone the Affected Territory as a condition of annexation.
LAFCO, not the City, is the approving authority for the Reorganization Activities.
Where more than one agency may take a discretionary action with respect to a project under CEQA (a “Project”), the law generally requires that one agency serve as the CEQA “lead agency” and the other agencies serve as “responsible agencies.” Section 15051(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which establish criteria for the identification of the lead agency, provides that the lead agency will normally be the agency with general governmental powers rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose. That section further provides that, when a city pre-zones an area, the city will be the appropriate lead agency for any subsequent annexation of the area, and that the LAFCO shall act as a responsible agency. The responsibilities of a responsible agency are set forth in Section 15096 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Because no person challenged the General Plan EIR following its May 20, 2025 certification and within the applicable statute of limitation, the EIR is conclusively presumed to comply with the provisions of CEQA for the purpose of its use by responsible agencies unless a supplemental or subsequent EIR (either, an “SEIR”) and is required under Section 21166 of CEQA due to changes in the project, changes in circumstances, or certain types of new information. The purpose of this Addendum is therefore to assess whether any of the triggers requiring preparation of an SEIR have occurred. An addendum is appropriate where a previously certified EIR has been prepared and some changes or revisions to the project are proposed but none of the changes or revisions would result in significant new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, consistent with CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15164, 15166, 15168, and 15183.
As the lead agency under the CEQA, the City has determined, based on substantial evidence, that the proposed pre-zoning warrants the preparation of an addendum in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Project will neither result in new significant impacts nor 81 City of American Canyon
Pre-Zoning and Proposed Reorganization Project
2 substantially increase the severity of previously disclosed impacts beyond those already identified in the certified 2040 General Plan EIR. Moreover, the Project has not changed to any extent requiring preparation of an SEIR. Accordingly, the certified 2040 General Plan EIR, together with this Addendum, provides the environmental documentation required for the Project and will be relied upon by both the City and LAFCO.
1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of American Canyon
Community Development Department
4381 Broadway, Suite 201
American Canyon, California 94503
1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Brent Cooper, AICP
Community Development Director for the City of American Canyon 4381 Broadway, Suite # 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
(707) 647-4335
[email protected]
1.4 Project Location
The City is located in Napa County at the southern entrance of the Napa Valley, approximately 35 miles northeast of San Francisco, and serves as a northern Bay Area gateway north of Vallejo and south of downtown Napa. The City is bordered by the Napa River to the west, Sulphur Springs Mountain foothills to the east, Vallejo to the south, and vineyards near the Napa County Airport to the north. Figure 1 shows a regional map of the City’s relationship to nearby cities, communities, and the regional transportation system, and Figure 1 also shows the City’s limits and the location of the Project.
The Affected Territory is located outside of and adjacent to the City’s limits, as shown as the “Future Study Area” in Figure 2. The Project Area includes the Affected Territory, Future Study Area which consists of approximately 282 acres located northeast of the City in unincorporated Napa County, California. The property is also identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 057-090-065 and 057-090-089.
82 Introduction and Project Summary
Addendum to 2040 General Plan Program EIR
State Clearinghouse Number 2022070038 3
451252.1
Figure 1 Regional Location.
83 City of American Canyon
Pre-Zoning and Proposed Reorganization Project
4 Figure 2 Project Area
84 Introduction and Project Summary
Addendum to 2040 General Plan Program EIR
State Clearinghouse Number 2022070038 5
451252.1
1.5 Project Description
The City proposes to pre-zone the Affected Territory to the Special Study Zone District (SSZ) pursuant to Government Code Section 65859 (the “Project”).
The Special Study Zone District is established by ACMC Chapter 19.50 for the following purposes:
• Allow properties to be zoned or pre-zoned until the City has completed appropriate planning studies to determine the types and intensities of land uses through an amendment of the City’s General Plan.
• Allow agricultural, grazing, open space, and public uses within the district as interim uses.
The Affected Territory has not been pre-zoned by the City on any prior occasion and therefore currently carries no municipal zoning district designation. On November 12, 2024, the Napa County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a General Plan Amendment (P21-00055) and Rezone (P24-0221), that redesignated and rezoned the Affected Territory as “Industry.” Under Napa County Code of Ordinances Chapter 18.08.330, "Industry" means, “the processing of materials or fabricating of articles, including research, manufacturing and refining, and the packaging, treatment, assembly and storage of goods, materials, liquids and equipment in connection therewith. It includes sales of items produced on the premise.” The County’s general plan designation and zoning are not legally relevant to the Project, because upon Reorganization the City’s general plan and pre-zoning will govern the use of the Affected Territory. It should nonetheless be noted that the Affected Territory was formerly a vineyard; however, operations have ceased and the property is currently in a fallow, open space condition with no structures or active land uses.
The City’s proposed SSZ pre-zoning is substantially more restrictive than the County’s current “Industry” zoning designation. The SSZ District does not authorize any of the industrial, commercial, or warehouse uses that would be permissible under the County’s Industry zoning. Rather, the SSZ serves as a study zone that limits uses to agriculture, grazing, open space, and public uses pending completion of future City planning studies. Upon the potential Reorganization Activities approval by LAFCO, the effect of the SSZ District would replace the County’s Industry designation with a more restrictive, less environmentally impactful, interim classification that preserves the Affected Territory’s current fallow/open space condition. As such, the Project would not allow for any intensification of existing or planned land uses beyond what already would be allowed under existing conditions. Additionally, following Reorganization Activities, the Project would not authorize or permit any new urban development within the Affected Territory, as all future development within the Affected Territory would be subject to rezoning and applications for discretionary permits that would separately require their own review and analysis in compliance with CEQA. Although the SSZ District allows certain by-right agricultural and rural residential uses, the property owners have advised the City that they do not have any intention of developing such uses on the Affected Territory.
In conjunction with their Reorganization Activities application, the Affected Territory landowners have requested the LAFCO to amend the SOI for the City and the American Canyon Fire Protection District and concurrently annex into the City’s and American Canyon Fire Protection District’s boundaries, which requires LAFCO approval of the Reorganization Activities into the respective agency boundaries. Under state law, LAFCO is responsible for coordinating and overseeing logical and timely changes to local government agency boundaries. As a responsible agency under CEQA, LAFCO also must consider this addendum in conjunction with the City’s 2040 General Plan Program 85 City of American Canyon
Pre-Zoning and Proposed Reorganization Project
6 EIR in evaluating whether to approve the Project. The SOI amendment and annexation areas for the City and American Canyon Fire Protection District included in the Project are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Annexation Detail
86 Introduction and Project Summary
Addendum to 2040 General Plan Program EIR
State Clearinghouse Number 2022070038 7
451252.1
This page is intentionally blank
87 City of American Canyon
Pre-Zoning and Proposed Reorganization Project
8 1.6 Prior Environmental Document
The City prepared the General Plan EIR for the 2040 General Plan Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2022070038) in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
On May 20, 2025, the City Council reviewed and considered the entire record before taking the following actions (Resolution No. 2025-37):
• Certified the Final Program EIR (SCH No. 2022070038); • Adopted CEQA Findings of Fact pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091; • Adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093; • Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097; and
• Adopted the 2040 General Plan Update, including the "Future Study Area" designation for the Affected Territory.
A Notice of Determination was filed on May 21, 2025. No challenge was filed. The General Plan EIR is conclusive.
The General Plan EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of a full buildout of the 2040 General Plan across the entire planning area, including the City limits, SOI, Urban Limit Line (ULL), and historic water service area. The General Plan EIR analyzed the update to the City’s current General Plan, which established the City’s vision for future development through the horizon year of 2040. The 2040 General Plan Update is the City’s primary guide for future land use and development decisions in a way that meets the community needs and priorities while serving as a key tool for influencing and improving the quality of life for residents and businesses. As such, it serves as the “blueprint” for future development and conservation of a community. The 2040 General Plan Update helps the City plan for important community issues, such as community growth; health, housing, mobility, and infrastructure needs; climate change; and environmental protection. It sets the stage for future social, physical, and economic development of the city.
In the General Plan EIR, the Affected Territory was specifically included in the planning area and its designation as "Future Study Area" was part of the project description analyzed in the Program EIR.
The Program EIR also contemplated the potential future expansion of the City’s SOI and ULL to include the Affected Territory, as reflected in the "Future Study Area" designation and the General Plan’s ULL extension provisions. Furthermore, General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-11.5 states:
LU-11.5: SOI Amendment. Meet and confer with Napa County and LAFCO to amend the City’s Sphere of Influence to include the “Hess and Laird” Properties and other properties at the direction of the City Council. The General Plan EIR also identifies LAFCO as a Responsible Agency under the General Plan EIR for its implementation through annexations over the project life. (p. 1-6.) 88 Introduction and Project Summary
Addendum to 2040 General Plan Program EIR
State Clearinghouse Number 2022070038 9
451252.1
2 Addendum Criteria
Under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and15164, a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that none of the following has occurred:
Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and sections 15162 and15164 of the CEQA Guidelines demonstrates whether the lead agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the existing certified EIR, that an addendum to the existing EIR would be appropriate, and no new environmental document, such as a subsequent EIR or EIR supplement, would be required.1 Moreover, the tiering provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 require that when a project is consistent with the development density established by general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, lead agencies shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project.
The analysis herein substantiates and supports the City’s determination that the Project does not require subsequent or supplemental review under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and15164, and contains no peculiar environmental impacts under section 15183. In conjunction with the Program EIR, this Addendum adequately analyzes potential environmental impacts of the Project and no additional environmental review is required. 1 The addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR, and the decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to deciding on the project. 89 City of American Canyon
Pre-Zoning and Proposed Reorganization Project
10 3 Addendum Evaluation
3.1 Overview
3.1.1 No substantial changes justifying preparation of an SEIR are proposed to the Project
Pre-zoning the Project Area as SSZ is consistent with the current land use designations provided in the City’s General Plan EIR. The Project would not result in zoning or land use regulations different from those in the City’s General Plan such that there would be a net increase of potential buildout in the Affected Territory or associated significant impacts. As noted above, the City’s proposed SSZ pre-zoning is substantially more restrictive than the current industrial zoning designation. The SSZ District does not authorize any of the industrial, commercial, or warehouse uses that would be permissible under the County’s General Industrial zoning. Rather, the SSZ serves as a zoning district that limits uses to agriculture, grazing, open space, and public uses pending completion of future City planning studies. The effect of the SSZ pre-zoning, upon LAFCO’s potential approval of the Reorganization Activities, would be to replace the County’s Industry designation with a classification that preserves the property’s current fallow/open space condition. As such, the Project would not allow for any intensification of existing or planned land uses beyond what already would be allowed under existing conditions. Additionally, the Project would not authorize or permit any new development within the Affected Territory, as all future development within the Affected Territory would be subject to rezoning and applications for discretionary permits that would separately require their own review and analysis in compliance with CEQA. The City has received no development applications from either Hess or Laird.
3.1.2 No substantial changes to the circumstances have occurred that would justify preparation of an SEIR
No substantial changes in circumstances have occurred since the General Plan EIR was certified on May 20, 2025 — approximately 13 months ago. The Affected Territory remains in a fallow, open space condition. Former vineyard operations have ceased and no new, more intensive development is occurring or planned on the Project Area that would alter the environmental baseline analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Further, in November 12, 2024, the Napa County Board of Supervisors’ rezoned the property from Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space (AWOS) to Industry. As this predated the General Plan EIR certification it was known to the City during General Plan EIR preparation. No new infrastructure projects, changed environmental regulations, or altered site conditions have been identified that would require major revisions to the EIR.
3.1.3 No new information of substantial importance showing an environmental impact that was not previously analyzed to the extent an SEIR is required
Likewise, no new information of substantial importance has become available since certification of the Program EIR that would trigger any of the conditions for subsequent or supplemental environmental review. The pre-zoning to SSZ does not introduce any new land uses, development potential, or significant unmitigated environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the Program 90 References
Addendum to 2040 General Plan Program EIR
State Clearinghouse Number 2022070038 11
451252.1
EIR. Because the SSZ District authorizes only agriculture, grazing, open space, and public uses — and no new, more intensive development entitlements —the pre-zoning would not result in new or more severe significant effects. No new mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified that are relevant to this non-development action.
The following table examines each environmental topic area addressed in the Program EIR and confirms that the Project is within the scope of the prior analysis and does not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impact.
3.2 Environmental Checklist
The purpose of this checklist is to evaluate the Project to determine if it may result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts when compared to the impacts identified in the certified General Plan EIR. The following sections, adapted from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, examines each environmental topic area addressed in the General Plan Program EIR and confirms that the Project is within the scope of the prior analysis, including applicable MMRPs, and does not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impact. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category; rather, it means there is no change in the condition or status of the impact compared to the conclusions of the General Plan EIR.
Aesthetics: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
The Project does not authorize any new structures or development that would significantly alter the visual character of the property. The property will continue in its existing fallow/open space condition. No new significant sources of light or glare will be introduced. Visual impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
Agricultural uses (former vineyard) have ceased and the property is currently fallow. The SSZ District expressly permits agriculture and grazing as primary uses (ACMC § 19.50.030), preserving the option for future agricultural use. The pre-zoning does not convert farmland to non-agricultural use; rather, it establishes a zoning district allows agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses when the County’s current Industry designation authorized conversion of agricultural to industrial use.
Agricultural resources impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Air Quality: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
The Project does not authorize any new significant development, construction activity, or operational emissions sources. No significantly new vehicle trips, stationary sources, or fugitive dust emissions will result. Air quality impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Biological Resources: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
The SSZ District expressly agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC § 19.50.030), preserving the option for future agricultural use. No significantly new ground disturbance, grading, vegetation removal, or habitat modification is authorized by the SSZ pre-zoning. No new significant impacts to special-status species, sensitive habitats, wetlands, or wildlife corridors will occur. 91 City of American Canyon
Pre-Zoning and Proposed Reorganization Project
12 Biological resources impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts result from the Project.
Cultural Resources: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
The Project does not authorize more significant ground disturbance or construction that could affect historical or archaeological resources because the SSZ District expressly agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC § 19.50.030), preserving the option for future agricultural use..
Cultural resources impacts were addressed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Energy: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
No new significant increase in energy demand or consumption will result from the Project because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC §
19.50.030), preserving the option for future agricultural use. Energy impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Geology and Soils: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
The Project authorizes no significantly new construction, grading, or ground disturbance that could expose people or structures to seismic or geologic hazards, or affect paleontological resources beyond anticipated by the General Plan EIR because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC § 19.50.030), preserving the option for future agricultural use. Geology and soils impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
No significantly new GHG emission sources will result from the Project because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC § 19.50.030), preserving the option for future agricultural use. GHG impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
The SSZ pre-zoning does not authorize industrial uses that could significantly increase hazardous materials handling, transport, use, or disposal because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC § 19.50.030), preserving the option for future agricultural use. No new hazard conditions are created. Proximity to the Napa County Airport was addressed in the General Plan EIR; the SSZ does not introduce incompatible land uses within any Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan zone. Hazard impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
No new water supply demand is created because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC § 19.50.030), preserving the option for future agricultural use. Hydrology and water quality impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project. 92 References
Addendum to 2040 General Plan Program EIR
State Clearinghouse Number 2022070038 13
451252.1
Land Use and Planning: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
The SSZ pre-zoning directly correlates with the "Future Study Area" designation in the adopted 2040 General Plan (ACMC § 19.50.020) and establishes consistency as required by law. It does not divide an established community or conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC §
19.50.030), preserving the option for future agricultural use. This is the express purpose of the prezoning action — to achieve General Plan/zoning consistency as required by Gov. Code §§ 56375(a)(7) and 65860.
The Affected Territory is located outside the City’s current Sphere of Influence (SOI) and outside the City’s current Urban Limit Line (ULL). LAFCO's policy on urban growth boundaries for annexations to a City or Town states: “To the extent that a city or town maintains an urban growth boundary, the affected territory proposed for annexation should be included in the urban growth boundary prior to submittal of an annexation proposal.” LAFCO’s policy states that ideally, territory proposed for annexation should be within a city’s urban growth boundary prior to submittal.
Because this policy is not mandatory, however, the Commission retains the full scope of its discretion to approve conditional annexations. This allows LAFCO to adapt to specific, beneficial regional circumstances.2
Conditional annexation of the Affected Territory subject to future adjustment of the ULL addresses and aligns with LAFCO’s policies concerning annexation because (i) the landowner concurrently requests that the parcels be included within the City’s SOI; (ii) LAFCO encourages concurrent annexation to special districts, including the American Canyon Fire Protection District; (iii) a property tax exchange agreement is in place between all affected agencies; (iv) the annexation facilitates logical and orderly boundaries for all affected agencies. Annexation conditioned on future adjustment of the City’s urban growth boundary will facilitate effective long-range planning because it gives the City proactive control over regional development before disjointed growth occurs.
By bringing the Affected Territory under its jurisdiction, the City can logically map out a development future which, for example, may contain transportation corridors, coordinate the efficient extension of water and sewer infrastructure, and reserve strategic plots for schools, parks, and emergency services in advance of potential development pressure. Annexation transforms unpredictable fringe development into a deliberate, economically sustainable expansion that aligns with the City's long-term vision for housing, commerce, and resource conservation. The General Plan EIR also contemplated the potential future expansion of the City’s SOI and ULL to include the Affected Territory, as reflected in the "Future Study Area" designation and the General Plan’s ULL extension provisions.
Land use impacts associated with the pre-zoning which expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC § 19.50.030), preserving the option for future agricultural use were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Mineral Resources: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact. 2 LAFCOs are afforded “large discretionary powers” under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act. (Gov. Code § 56300(a); Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263
93 City of American Canyon
Pre-Zoning and Proposed Reorganization Project
14 The Project does not affect the availability of known mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC § 19.50.030), preserving the option for future agricultural use. The pre-zoning would not allow a development that may preclude mineral extraction. Mineral resource impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Noise: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
The Project does not introduce any new noise sources because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC § 19.50.030). No new significant construction, operational noise, or ground-borne vibration will result. Noise impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Population and Housing: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
The Project does not significantly impact population or housing because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC § 19.50.030 No residents currently reside on the property. Therefore, displacement of people or housing will not occur. Population and housing impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Public Services: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
No new significant demand for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public services will result from the Project because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC § 19.50.030). Public service impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Fire protection to the property is currently provided by the American Canyon Fire Protection District (ACFPD) by mutual aid (Long Range Master Plan, 2022). Current response times show up to eight (8) minutes for the property. Reorganization Activities to the ACFPD would not significantly increase demands for fire or municipal services because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses as primary uses (ACMC § 19.50.030). As such, it results in no significant change to the existing physical environment and does not require significant construction of new facilities, increased service capacity, or any other alteration of facilities or operations.
Recreation: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact. The Project does not generate significantly new residents or increase demand for recreational facilities because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public as primary uses (ACMC § 19.50.030). No physical deterioration of existing parks or facilities will occur.
Recreation impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Transportation: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
No significant new vehicle trips are generated by the Project because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC § 19.50.030).. Transportation impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
94 References
Addendum to 2040 General Plan Program EIR
State Clearinghouse Number 2022070038 15
451252.1
The Project does not authorize significant new ground disturbance or construction that could affect tribal cultural resources because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC § 19.50.030). Therefore, no significant new physical changes to the property will occur. The City conducted AB 52 consultation as part of the General Plan Update process. Tribal cultural resources impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Utilities and Service Systems: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
No new significant demand for water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, telecommunications, or solid waste disposal will result from the Project because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC §
19.50.030). Utility impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project.
Wildfire: Yes, it is within scope of the General Plan EIR. No new or more severe impact.
The Project does not authorize new significant structures or development in a wildfire hazard area because the SSZ District expressly permits agriculture, grazing, open space and public uses (ACMC §
19.50.030). No new significant population will be exposed to wildfire risks. Wildfire impacts were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no new or more severe impacts will result from the Project. 95 City of American Canyon
Pre-Zoning and Proposed Reorganization Project
16 4 Cumulative Impacts
The Project would not result in new or more severe cumulatively considerable impacts than were identified in City’s 2040 General Plan Program EIR. No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to cumulative impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Additionally, any potential future use of the Project Area beyond allowable pre-zoning land uses without further environmental review is too speculative to consider in cumulative impacts. No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the City’s 2040 General Plan Program EIR, and none of the conditions identified in Public Resources Code section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have been met.
96 References
Addendum to 2040 General Plan Program EIR
State Clearinghouse Number 2022070038 17
451252.1
5 Conclusion
The City of American Canyon, as the CEQA lead agency, determined that an addendum is the appropriate CEQA document because the Project would not create any new significant environmental impacts, substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts, or involve changes in circumstances or new information that would require further environmental review under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162. The Project is consistent with the development and growth assumptions analyzed in the certified 2040 General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, no additional CEQA review is required. 97 City of American Canyon
Pre-Zoning and Proposed Reorganization Project
18 6 References
1. City of American Canyon, 2040 General Plan (adopted May 20, 2025).
2. City of American Canyon, 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022070038) (September 2024).
3. City of American Canyon, 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022070038) (May 2025).
4. City of American Canyon, CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for 2040 General Plan (May 20, 2025).
5. City of American Canyon, Ordinance No. 2025-02 (2040 General Plan Municipal Code Consistency Updates) (May 20, 2025).
6. City of American Canyon, Notice of Determination — 2040 General Plan Municipal Code Consistency Updates (June 4, 2025).
7. American Canyon Municipal Code, Title 19, Chapter 19.50 (Special Study Zone District).
8. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
9. CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3), Sections 15061(b)(3), 15062, 15162, 15164, 15168, 15183.
10. California Government Code Sections 56375(a)(7), 56425, 65859, 65860.
11. Napa County Board of Supervisors, Resolution approving General Plan Amendment (P21-00055) and Rezone (P24-0221) for the Hess-Laird Property from AWOS to Industrial, with Addendum to 2008 General Plan EIR (November 12, 2024).
12. Napa County Board of Supervisors, Urban Limit Line and RHNA Allocation Transfer Agreement with City of American Canyon (Agreement No. 260377B) (May 2026).
13. Napa LAFCO, Staff Report — Current and Future Proposals (June 1, 2026).
14. Rincon Consultants, Inc., Environmental Impact Report for the City of American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update (2024–2025).
15. AP Triton, American Canyon Fire Protection District Long-Range Master Plan (September 2022). 98 EXHIBIT D
99 provided the use avoids new features that attract birds or provide mitigation consistent with FAA regulations1, exercise caution with uses involving noise-sensitive animals.
Because the City of American Canyon does not define “public uses” the following consistency information is provided for the various public uses described in the Napa County Airport Compatibility Plan, Exhibit 5-1 Basic Compatibility Criteria, Napa County Airport. • Allowable uses in the Special Study Pre-Zoning district, such as public uses [Outdoor Major Assembly Facilities (capacity ≥1,000 people); spectator-oriented outdoor stadiums, amphitheaters, fairgrounds, racetracks, water parks, zoos] are deemed “incompatible” within the Napa County Airport Compatibility Zone D1, and “Conditional” within the Napa County Airport Compatibility Zone D2, and allowed only if alternative site outside zone would not serve intended function; exercise caution if clear audibility by users is essential; ensure intensity criteria met.
• Allowable uses in the Special Study Pre-Zoning district, such as public uses [Outdoor Large Assembly Facilities (capacity 300-999 people): spectator-oriented outdoor stadiums, amphitheaters] are deemed “Conditional” within the Napa Couty Airport Compatibility Zones D1 and D2, ensure intensity criteria met; not allowed if intended primarily for use by children; exercise caution if clear audibility by users is essential. • Allowable uses in the Special Study Pre-Zoning district, such as public uses [Outdoor Group Recreation (limited spectator stands): athletic fields, water recreation facilities (community pools), picnic areas] are deemed “Conditional” within the Napa Couty Airport Compatibility Zones D1 and D2, ensure intensity criteria met; not allowed if intended primarily for use by children; exercise caution if clear audibility by users is essential. • Allowable uses in the Special Study Pre-Zoning district, such as public uses [Outdoor NonGroup Recreation (small/low-intensity): golf courses (except clubhouse), tennis courts, shooting ranges, bocci courts, trails, passive regional/community parks with minimal recreational facilities are deemed “Normally Compatible” within the Napa County Airport Compatibility Zones D1 and D2.
• Allowable uses in the Special Study Pre-Zoning district, such as public uses (Local/Community Parks: neighborhood parks, community parks, playgrounds are deemed “Normally Compatible” within the Napa County Airport Compatibility Zones D1 and D2.
This finding of consistency with the ALUCP applies to the version of the project referred to the Executive Director, dated July 31, 2026. If there are any changes to the projects scope or scale it may necessitate further consistency review.
Please note that future development of the parcels would be subject to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
1 No proposed use shall be allowed that would create an increased attraction for wildlife and that is inconsistent with FAA rules and regulations including, but not limited to, FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33C, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports and Advisory Circular 150/5200-34A, Construction or Establishment of Landfills near Public Airports. Of particular concern are landfills and certain recreational or agricultural uses that attract large flocks of birds which pose bird strike hazards to aircraft in flight. See Policy 3.5.3. 100
If you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to contact me at (707) 259-8757 or via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Wendy Atkins, Planner II
cc: Nick Johnson, via email: [email protected]
101
Hess/Laird Location Map
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
STAFF REPORT
CONSENT
ITEM NUMBER: 6.
TITLE
2026 Biennial City Conflict of Interest Code
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolu)on approving the 2026 Conflict of Interest Code as amended, authorizing future updates by Resolu)on, and authorizing the City Clerk to complete and file the 2026 Local Biennial Notice.
CONTACT
Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
The Poli)cal Reform Act requires local agencies to adopt and periodically review a Conflict of Interest Code iden)fying posi)ons that make or par)cipate in governmental decisions and establishing the financial disclosure requirements applicable to those posi)ons. As part of the 2026 biennial review, staff evaluated the City’s exis)ng Conflict of Interest Code to ensure that it accurately reflects the City’s current organiza)onal structure, posi)on responsibili)es, and decisionmaking authority.
The proposed 2026 update comprehensively revises the City’s designated-posi)on and disclosurecategory structure. The update separately iden)fies statutory filers subject to Government Code sec)on 87200; adds City advisory commissions and newly created or previously unlisted posi)ons; updates or removes outdated posi)on )tles; reorganizes designated posi)ons by department and func)onal group; and revises disclosure assignments based on the decision-making responsibili)es associated with each position.
The disclosure categories have also been rewritten and consolidated from six categories to five more clearly defined categories. The revised categories address full disclosure, land use and real property, Citywide contrac)ng and purchasing, departmental regulatory and opera)onal authority, and department-specific purchasing and contrac)ng. This approach is intended to more clearly align required financial disclosures with the types of governmental decisions each designated posi)on may make or participate in.
The update also establishes a duty-based approach for Management Analysts, consultants, 103
temporary and provisional employees, volunteers, re)red annuitants, and newly created posi)ons so that disclosure requirements may be assigned based on the actual responsibili)es of the individual or position.
Collec)vely, these revisions are intended to improve the clarity and administra)on of the City’s Conflict of Interest Code while ensuring that designated employees disclose financial interests that are reasonably related to the governmental decisions they may make or participate in.
COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Organizational Effectiveness: "Deliver exemplary government services."
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended action will have no financial impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
15378(b) - The ac)on is not a "Project" subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because it does not qualify as a "Project" under Public Resources Code Sec)ons 21065 and 21080 and in Section 15378(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
COMMUNICATION
Level 0: No Further Public Communication Needed
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution - Conflict of Interest
Exhibit A - COI Appendices A and B
2. Previous COI Appendices A and B
104
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON ADOPTING THE 2026
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE AS AMENDED, AUTHORIZING FUTURE UPDATES BY RESOLUTION, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO COMPLETE AND FILE THE 2026 LOCAL BIENNIAL NOTICE WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act of 1974, Government Code section 81000 et seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and maintain a Conflict of Interest Code; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 87300 requires every agency to adopt and promulgate a Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to the Political Reform Act; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 87302 requires a Conflict of Interest Code designating positions that involve the making or participation in the making of governmental decisions that may foreseeably have a material effect on a financial interest and to specify the disclosure categories applicable to those positions; and
WHEREAS, certain City officials are statutory filers pursuant to Government Code section 87200 and are subject to the disclosure requirements established by the Political Reform Act independent of the City's designation of positions in its Conflict of Interest Code; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 87306.5 requires local agencies to review their Conflict of Interest Codes biennially and determine whether amendments are necessary due to changed circumstances, including the creation or deletion of positions, changes in assigned duties, or changes in organizational structure; and
WHEREAS, as part of the City's 2026 biennial review, the City Clerk reviewed the City's existing Conflict of Interest Code, designated positions, organizational structure, position titles, assigned duties, and disclosure categories and determined that amendments are necessary; and WHEREAS, the proposed 2026 Conflict of Interest Code updates the City's designated positions to reflect its current organizational structure and position responsibilities, including the addition of newly created or previously unlisted positions, the removal or modification of obsolete position titles, and revisions to disclosure requirements based upon the governmental decision-making responsibilities of each position; and
WHEREAS, the 2026 update separately identifies officials subject to Government Code section 87200, organizes designated positions by department or functional group, and establishes provisions for determining appropriate disclosure requirements for Management Analysts, consultants, temporary and provisional employees, volunteers, retired annuitants, and newly created positions based upon their assigned duties; and
WHEREAS, the City's disclosure categories have also been revised and consolidated to more clearly identify financial interests that may foreseeably be affected by the governmental decisions made or participated in by designated employees; and
105
WHEREAS, Appendix A – Statutory Filers and Designated Positions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, identifies the City's statutory filers and designated positions and assigns the applicable disclosure category or categories to each designated position; and WHEREAS, Appendix B – Disclosure Categories, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, establishes the disclosure requirements applicable to the designated positions identified in Appendix A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that adoption of the amended Conflict of Interest Code will ensure that the City's Code accurately reflects the City's current organizational structure and the responsibilities of officers, employees, consultants, and other persons who make or participate in governmental decisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
SECTION 2. Adoption of 2026 Conflict of Interest Code.
The City Council hereby adopts the City's amended 2026 Conflict of Interest Code, consisting of Appendix A – Statutory Filers and Designated Positions and Appendix B – Disclosure Categories, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3. Statutory Filers.
Officials identified in Appendix A as statutory filers pursuant to Government Code section 87200 shall comply with the disclosure and filing requirements applicable to statutory filers under the Political Reform Act and regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission.
SECTION 4. Designated Positions.
Persons occupying positions designated in Appendix A shall file Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) in accordance with the disclosure category or categories assigned to their positions and applicable provisions of the Political Reform Act and Fair Political Practices Commission regulations.
SECTION 5. Special and Newly Created Positions.
Management Analysts shall disclose financial interests according to the disclosure category or categories appropriate to their actual assigned duties. Consultants and persons serving in temporary, provisional, volunteer, retired annuitant, or newly created positions shall disclose financial interests according to the disclosure category or categories appropriate to the duties performed, consistent with Appendices A and B and applicable law.
SECTION 6. Superseding Prior Appendices.
Upon the effective date of this Resolution, Appendices A and B adopted as part of the City's prior Conflict of Interest Code are superseded and replaced in their entirety by the Appendices A and B adopted by this Resolution. All other provisions of the City's Conflict of Interest Code that are not amended by this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
106
SECTION 7. Future Amendments.
To the extent permitted by law, future amendments to the City's Conflict of Interest Code, including amendments necessary as a result of biennial review, organizational changes, the creation or deletion of positions, changes in position titles or responsibilities, or revisions to disclosure categories, may be adopted by resolution of the City Council without amendment of the ordinance originally establishing the City's Conflict of Interest Code, unless an ordinance amendment is otherwise required by law.
SECTION 8. Authorization of City Clerk.
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to implement and administer the City's 2026 Conflict of Interest Code, including maintaining the City's list of Form 700 filers, providing notice to designated filers, completing and filing the City's 2026 Local Agency Biennial Notice, and submitting or transmitting the Conflict of Interest Code and related documentation to the appropriate code reviewing body or other agency as required by law.
SECTION 9. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution or the Conflict of Interest Code adopted herein is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions.
SECTION 10. Effective Date.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon held on September 15, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_______________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVE AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ _______________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk Matthew T. Summers, City Attorney Exhibit A:
Appendix A - Statutory Filers and Designated Positions
Appendix B - Disclosure Categories
107
APPENDIX A
STATUTORY FILERS AND DESIGNATED POSITIONS
STATUTORY FILERS
The following positions are subject to the disclosure requirements of Government Code section 87200 and are required, as applicable, pursuant to Government Code section 87500 to file Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) electronically with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
Group Position
Elected and
Appointed Officials
Mayor
City Council
Planning Commission
City Staff
City Attorney
City Manager
Finance Director
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
Pursuant to Government Code section 87302(a), the City's Conflict of Interest Code designates those positions, other than positions specified in Government Code section 87200, that involve the making or participation in the making of governmental decisions that may foreseeably have a material effect on a financial interest.
Persons holding designated positions are required to file Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) with the City Clerk in accordance with the disclosure categories assigned below.
Department / Group Designated Position Disclosure Category Members of Advisory Bodies
Parks and Community Services Commission 1
Open Space, Active Transportation and
Sustainability Commission
1 108
Page | 2
Department / Group Designated Position Disclosure Category Administration
Assistant City Manager 1
Deputy City Manager 1
City Clerk 1
Deputy City Clerk 3
Human Resources Manager 3
Human Resources Analyst (MA) 3
Police Chief 1
Community Development
Community Development Director 1
Chief Building Official 2, 4
Senior Planner 2, 4
Assistant Planner/Associate Planner 2, 4
Code Enforcement Officer 2, 4
Finance
Finance Manager 1
Senior Accountant (MA) 3
Senior Budget Analyst (MA) 3
Information Technology Consultant 3, 5
Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation Director 1
Recreation Manager 3, 5
Public Works
Public Works Director 1
Assistant Director of Public Works 1
Maintenance and Utilities Director 1
Senior Civil Engineer 2, 3, 4
Development Services Engineer 2, 3, 4
109
Page | 3
Public Works
Public Works Superintendent 3, 5
Environmental Services Manager 3, 4, 5
Operations Manager 3, 5
Water Systems Manager 3, 4, 5
Wastewater Manager 3, 4, 5
Other
Management Analyst (MA) As assigned*
Consultants
See note** Temporary or Provisional Positions
Volunteers and Retired Annuitants
Newly Created Positions
* Management Analyst positions shall be designated based on the actual duties assigned to the position. ** Consultants and persons serving in temporary, provisional, volunteer, retired annuitant, or newly created positions shall disclose based on the disclosure category or categories that are appropriate to the individual's duties. 110
APPENDIX B
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Category 1 – Full Disclosure
Persons in this category shall disclose all investments and business positions in business entities, interests in real property, and sources of income, including loans, gifts, and travel payments, as required by the Political Reform Act.
Category 2 – Land Use, Development, and Real Property
Persons in this category shall disclose: (1) interests in real property located within, or within two miles of, the jurisdiction of the City of American Canyon, or otherwise subject to the City's jurisdiction; and (2) investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including loans, gifts, and travel payments, from persons or entities engaged in land development, construction, real estate, architecture, engineering, planning, environmental consulting, surveying, building, property management, or other activities subject to the City's land use, permitting, development, or regulatory authority.
Category 3 – Contracts, Purchasing, and City Services
Persons in this category shall disclose investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including loans, gifts, and travel payments, from persons or entities that provide, or during the reporting period have provided, goods, equipment, materials, supplies, leased facilities, consulting services, professional services, or other services of the type used or purchased by the City.
Category 4 – Departmental Regulatory and Operational Decisions Persons in this category shall disclose investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including loans, gifts, and travel payments, from persons or entities that are subject to the regulatory, permitting, licensing, inspection, enforcement, operational, or other decision-making authority of the employee's department or area of responsibility.
Category 5 – Department-Specific Purchasing and Contracting Persons in this category shall disclose investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including loans, gifts, and travel payments, from persons or entities that provide goods, equipment, materials, supplies, consulting services, professional services, or other services of the type used, purchased, administered, or recommended by the employee's department or area of responsibility.
Special Assignment Provision
Consultants and persons serving in temporary, provisional, volunteer, retired annuitant, or newly created positions shall disclose based on the disclosure category or categories that are appropriate to the individual's duties. 111
APPENDIX A
DESIGNATED POSITIONS AND PERSONS PERFORMING DESIGNATED SERVICES
POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Assistant City Manager All
Assistant Planner/Associate Planner 1, 2, 3, 4
City Attorney All
City Clerk 1, 2, 5, 6
City Manager All
Chief Building Official 1, 2, 3, 4
Code Enforcement Officer 1, 2, 3, 4
Consultants1 All
Community Development Director 1, 2, 3, 4
Development Services Engineer All
Finance Director All
Finance Manager All
Human Resources Officer All
Management Analyst All
Maintenance and Utilities Director All
Parks and Recreation Director 1, 2, 6
Police Chief 1, 2
Public Works Director All
Public Works Superintendent All
Recreation Manager 5,6
Senior Civil Engineer All
Senior Planner 1, 2, 3, 4
Temporary or Provisional Positions2
Volunteer and Retired Annuitant3
Plant Operations Manager 1, 2, 5, 6
Wastewater Systems Manager 1, 2, 5, 6
Water Systems Manager 1, 2, 5, 6
1 Consultants – All key personnel listed in consultant firm contracts are required to file a Form 700 – Statement of Economic Interests (as well as consultants/temporary staff acting in staff capacity). 2 Temporary or provisional positions may be included in the list of designated employees when the City Manager determines that the temporary position is the functional equivalent of a designated position. If such a determination is made, then disclosure shall be pursuant to the disclosure category required by this Code for the comparable designated staff position.
3 Volunteers and retired annuitants may be included in the list of designated employees when the City Manager determines that the temporary position is the functional equivalent of a designated position. If such a determination is made, then disclosure shall be pursuant to the disclosure category required by this Code for the comparable designated staff position.
112
APPENDIX B
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
REPORTABLE INVESTMENTS, INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY AND INCOME
1. All investments and sources of income.
2. All interest in real property.
3. All investments, interests in real property, and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit, or licensing authority of the department.
4. Investments in business entities and business positions and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property.
5. Investments in business entities and business positions and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of American Canyon to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery, or equipment.
6. Investments in business entities and business positions and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employees’ department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery, or equipment. 113
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
STAFF REPORT
CONSENT
ITEM NUMBER: 7.
TITLE
Approve an exemp#on from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and conduct Final Reading and Adop#on of the Accessory Animal Husbandry and Livestock Keeping Regulations Zoning Code Amendment
RECOMMENDATION
Waive final reading, read by #tle only, and adopt an Ordinance to amend American Canyon Municipal Code Sec#ons 19.05.090, 19.05.100, 19.10.040, and 19.31.020 to remove the prohibi#on on swine, limit livestock keeping to the Residen#al Estate (RE) Zoning district, and remove obsolete General Plan policy references.
CONTACT
Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director
Matthew Summers, City Attorney
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
On September 1, 2026, the City Council approved the first reading of an Ordinance approving a proposed Zoning Code Amendment that would revise three sec#ons of the American Canyon Municipal Code related to animal husbandry and livestock keeping. These include:
1) Remove language that currently excludes swine from the defini#on of Animal Husbandry in ACMC Sec#on 19.05.090 and 2) removes the same prohibi#on from the defini#on of Livestock Keeping in ACMC sec#on 19.05.100. This amendment would allow swine to be kept wherever animal husbandry or livestock keeping is otherwise permi?ed under the zoning code, subject to all exis#ng animal keeping standards, lot size requirements, setbacks, and nuisance regulations. 3) The amendment also provides that animal husbandry and livestock keeping is permi?ed as an accessory use only in the Residential Estate (RE) zoning district.
If the final reading is approved, the Ordinance will become effec#ve 30 days later on October 15, 2026. A copy of the Ordinance is included as Attachment 1.
COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
114
Community and Sense of Place: "Build on the strength of our local community to develop a clear 'sense of place' and establish our unique identity."
FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed amendment is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that the amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment. The amendment does not authorize new development and retains all existing operational standards governing animal keeping.
The proposed amendments do not authorize new development, increase development density, expand the geographic area where livestock keeping or animal husbandry is allowed, or eliminate exis#ng opera#onal standards applicable to animal keeping. Rather, the amendments remove the prohibi#on on swine within exis#ng use classifica#ons, reduce and clarify where livestock keeping and animal husbandry are permi?ed, and retain all exis#ng standards governing lot size, setbacks, maintenance, sanita#on, nuisance preven#on, and code enforcement. Accordingly, the amendments will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and are exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sec#on 15061(b)(3). The proposed amendments are also exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sec#on 15305 (Minor Altera#ons in Land Use Limita#ons) because they cons#tute minor modifica#ons to land use regula#ons and do not change land use designations, density, or development intensity.
COMMUNICATION
Level 0: No Further Public Communication Needed
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance Animal Keeping Zoning
115
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 19.05.090,
19.05.100, 19.10.040, AND 19.31.020 TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION ON SWINE, LIMIT
LIVESTOCK KEEPING TO THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE (RE) ZONING DISTRICT, AND REMOVE
OBSOLETE GENERAL PLAN POLICY REFERENCES
WHEREAS, the American Canyon Municipal Code (ACMC) regulates livestock keeping and animal husbandry through Chapter 19.05 (Use Classifications), Chapter 19.10 (Residential Zoning Districts), and Chapter 19.31 (Animal Keeping Standards); and
WHEREAS, ACMC Sections 19.05.090 and 19.05.100 currently exclude swine from the definitions of animal husbandry and livestock keeping; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would remove those exclusions and allow swine where animal husbandry or livestock keeping are otherwise permitted by the ACMC; and WHEREAS, The Residential Estate (RE) zoning district is intended for low-density residential development on large lots where livestock keeping is compatible with the area's rural character. In contrast, the Rural Residential Hillside (RRH), Rural Residential (RR), and Residential Single-Family (RS) zoning districts are intended primarily for residential use and generally have development patterns or lot sizes that make livestock keeping less compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would clarify that livestock keeping is allowed as an accessory use only in the Residential Estate (RE) zoning district. Livestock-keeping uses that were legally established in other residential zoning districts may continue in accordance with the Municipal Code as legal nonconforming uses; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would clarify that animal husbandry is permitted only in the Residential Estate (RE) zoning district, as animal husbandry is generally a rural agricultural use that is most appropriate on larger lots with greater separation from nearby homes. Any animal husbandry uses that were legally established in other residential zoning districts may continue as legal nonconforming uses; and
WHEREAS, ACMC Chapter 19.31 establishes standards for animal keeping, including minimum lot sizes, setbacks, maintenance requirements, sanitation standards, nuisance prevention measures, and enforcement provisions, all of which would remain in effect; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments primarily remove the prohibition on swine and update zoning regulations while retaining all existing animal-keeping standards and operational requirements; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would remove obsolete General Plan policy references currently contained in ACMC Section 19.10.040; and
116
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan because they support animal keeping and agricultural uses in appropriate locations while maintaining compatibility with surrounding properties through existing Municipal Code standards; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of American Canyon conducted a public hearing and unanimously recommended City Council approval of the ordinance; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council of the City of American Canyon on September 1, 2026, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard regarding the proposed Municipal Code amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon hereby adopts amendments to the American Canyon Municipal Code as follows:
SECTION 1. Amendment to ACMC Section 19.05.090 – Animal Husbandry Amend the definition of Animal Husbandry to remove the prohibition on swine as follows:
Animal Husbandry: Raising of animals or production of animal products, such as eggs or dairy products, on an agricultural or commercial basis. This classification includes grazing, ranching, dairy farming, poultry raising, the raising of fur-bearing animals, the raising of swine, and the sale and storage of materials produced on-site, but excludes feed lots, stockyards, slaughterhouses, dead animal rendering, and wild animal keeping.
SECTION 2. Amendment to ACMC Section 19.05.100 – Livestock Keeping Amend the definition of Livestock Keeping to allow swine as follows:
Livestock Keeping: The keeping of large animals for personal purposes, including equines, bovines, sheep, goats, and swine in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.31, Animal Keeping Regulations.
SECTION 3. Amendment to ACMC Section 19.31.020(B)(2) – Animal Keeping Standards Amend the livestock provisions to allow swine as follows:
(B) Permitted Animals
(2) Livestock. Large animals, including equines, bovines, sheep, goats, and swine, may be kept for personal purposes where livestock keeping is permitted as an accessory use in the underlying zoning district.
SECTION 4. Amendment to ACMC Section 19.10.040 – Allowable Uses Table Amend ACMC Section 19.10.040 to:
1. Permit livestock keeping as an accessory use only in the Residential Estate (RE) zoning district;
2. Clarify where animal husbandry is permitted;
3. Continue recognition of legally established nonconforming uses as provided by the Municipal Code; and
4. Remove obsolete General Plan policy references as shown on the table below:
117
Table 19.10.040
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 1
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICTS
Use Classifications RRHRERRRSRMRHRelated Provisions
Residential
Congregate living facility - - - - P P
Cottage food operations P P P P P P
Employee housing (1 to 6 occupants) P P P P - -
Garden apartments - - - - P P
Mobilehome - C C C - -
Mobilehome park - - - - C C Chapter 19.10
Multifamily residential - - - - P P
Residential Care Home, Small P P P P P P
Second residential unit P P P P P - Section 19.10.120
Single room occupancy - - - - - P Section 19.10.160
Single-family residential - - - - -
- Detached P P P P P
2 P2
- Semidetached - - P
3 P4 P P
Townhouses - - - - P P
Commercial
Adult business - - - - - -
Animal sales and service - C - - - -
- Boarding kennel - C - - - -
- Grooming - C - - - -
- Medical care - C - - - -
- Retail care - C - - - -
Bank, savings and loan - - - - - -
- Drive-up service - - - - - -
- Walk-up service - - - - - -
Building materials and services - - - - - -
Catering - - - - - -
Commercial printing - - - - - -
- Limited printing - - - - - -
Communication services - - - - - -
Entertainment, indoor - - - - - -
- Amusement center - - - - - -
- Gaming - - - - - -
118
Funeral and interment services
------
Health services------
Laboratory------
Lodging services------
- Bed and breakfast innCCC---
Long-term care facility------
Maintenance and repair services------
Nursery------
Offices, business, and professional------
On-premises liquor consumption-----
- Tasting room------
Pawnshops------
Personal improvement services------
- Night use------
Personal services------
Recycling collection center------
Restaurant------
- Night use------
Restaurant, take-out------
- Night use------
Retail food sales------
- Convenience store------
- Liquor store------
Retail sales------
- Limited------
- Visitor-oriented------
Vehicle/equipment sales and service------
- Automobile rental------
- Automobile washing------
- Service station------
- Vehicle/equipment repair------
- Vehicle/equipment sales, lease and rentals------
Wholesaling, commercial------
Industrial
Hazardous use------
Industry, general------
Industry, limited------
Mineral extraction------
Recycling center------
Research and development------
119
Storage tank(s) - - - - - -
Vehicle/equipment services - - - - - -
- Vehicle/equipment repair - - - - - -
- Vehicle storage - - - - - -
Wholesaling, distribution and storage - - - - - -
- Small scale - - - - - -
- Trucking terminal - - - - - -
Recreational
Recreational facilities, public C C P P P P
Recreation and sports, outdoor C C C C C C
Recreation, passive C C C C C C
Staging area C C C - - -
Public and Quasi-Public
Antenna - - P P P P
- Exceeding height limitations - - C C C C
Community center - - - C C C
Conference center - - - - - -
Cultural facility - - C C C
Day care center - M M M M M
Homeless shelter - - - - C C Chapter 19.42
Public safety facility C C C C C C
Religious facility C C C C C C
School - C C C C C
Utilities, major - - C C C C
Utilities, minor - - P P P P
Agriculture
Animal husbandry - P - - - -
Crop production C P - - - -
Accessory
Accessory dwelling unit - - - - - -
Livestock keeping - P - - - - Chapter 19.31
Caretaker's quarters C C - - - -
Family child care home, large P P P P - - Chapter 19.33 Family child care home, small P P P P P P
Guest house C C C C - -
Home occupation P P P P P P Chapter 19.29
Horticulture, limited P P P P P P
Room rentals - - C C - -
Temporary
Animal show - - - -
120
Commercial filming C C C C C C
Mobile structures C C C C C C Chapter 19.30
Personal property sales P P P P P P
SECTION 5. CEQA Findings The City Council finds that the proposed Municipal Code amendments are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) because it is clear that the amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment.
The amendments do not allow new development, increase development density, expand the areas where livestock keeping or animal husbandry are permitted, or remove existing rules for animal keeping. Instead, the amendments remove the prohibition on swine in certain existing use classifications, clarify and in some cases limit where livestock keeping and animal husbandry are allowed, and continue to apply all existing standards related to lot size, setbacks, maintenance, sanitation, nuisance prevention, and code enforcement. Because the amendments will not cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment, they are exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
The City Council also finds that the amendments are exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because they make only minor changes to land use regulations and do not change land use designations, allowed density, or development intensity.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective effect 30 days after its final passage pursuant to Government Code section 36937.
SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 8. CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance is based are located at the City Clerk’s office located at 4831 Broadway, Suite 201, American Canyon, CA 94503. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk.
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, State of California, held on the 1
st day of September, 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
121
The foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, State of California, held on the _________ day of ____________, ______, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_____________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ___________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk Matthew Summers, City Attorney 122
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
STAFF REPORT
CONSENT
ITEM NUMBER: 8.
TITLE
Approve an exemp#on from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and conduct Final Reading and Adopt the Accessory Dwelling Unit, Density Bonus, and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Update
RECOMMENDATION
Waive final reading, read by #tle only, and adopt an Ordinance to amend the American Canyon Municipal Code to update Chapter 19.27 (Density Bonus), Chapter 19.28 (Inclusionary Housing), and Chapter 19.39 (Accessory Dwelling Units) consistent with current State laws and Housing Element Implementation Measures.
CONTACT
Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
On September 1, 2026, the City Council approved the first reading of an Ordinance to update the City's Inclusionary Housing, Density Bonus, and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinances to reflect changes in State law, clarify administra#ve procedures, and support the produc#on of new housing.
Together, these regula#ons help implement the Housing Element and support the City's efforts to meet its Regional Housing Needs Alloca#on (RHNA), which requires planning for housing across all income levels.
The RHNA is supported by a range of policies and programs designed to reduce barriers to housing development. Because affordable housing is o@en the most difficult type of housing to finance and construct, State and local policies provide addi#onal incen#ves and requirements to encourage the development of housing affordable to lower-income households.
The dra@ ordinance was amended at introduc#on to correct a typographical error that excluded the word "major" in reference to a transit stop discussed in Sec#on 19.27.030(I). A copy of the revised Inclusionary Housing, Density Bonus, and ADU ordinances is included as Attachment 1.
COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Organizational Effectiveness: "Deliver exemplary government services." 123
FISCAL IMPACT
N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City Council finds the municipal code amendments are exempt from environmental review under CEQA because the amendments are consistent with State law that preempt any inconsistent local ordinance. Thus, the City’s ac#on is not crea#ng a new land use regula#on and it can be seen with certainty that no environmental impacts will result from the City’s ac#on. Consequently, and in accordance with CEQA Sec#on 21084(a) and both Sec#on 15002(i)(1) – lack of Local Jurisdic#onal Discre#on – and Sec#on 15061(b)(3) – General Rule of Exemp#on – of the CEQA Guidelines, the ordinance adop#on is exempt from CEQA review and a No#ce of Exemp#on has been prepared for this proposed amendment. Further, Public Resources Codes Sec#on 21080.17 exempts the adop#on of an ordinance implemen#ng state law governing accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
COMMUNICATION
Level 0: No Further Public Communication Needed
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance Affordable Housing Updates
124
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE CHAPTER
19.27 (DENSITY BONUS), CHAPTER 19.28 (INCLUSIONARY HOUSING), AND CHAPTER 19.39 (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS) CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STATE LAWS AND HOUSING
ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65300 of the State Planning and Zoning Law, the City of American Canyon (City) has adopted a General Plan (the 2040 General Plan Update) to provide comprehensive long-range planning and a blueprint of the City’s future form, including land use and circulation maps that specify the roadway network and the distribution of types and intensities of land; and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, on January 31, 2023, the City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2023, the California Department of Housing and Community Development certified the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element includes programs intended to reduce constraints to housing production, facilitate housing development for all income levels, and maintain compliance with State housing law; and WHEREAS, Housing Element Implementation Programs C, F, P, and V require updates to the Accessory Dwelling Unit, Density Bonus, and Inclusionary Housing ordinances; and WHEREAS, since adoption of the City’s existing ordinances, the California Legislature has enacted numerous amendments to State housing laws affecting accessory dwelling units, density bonus requirements, affordability requirements, development incentives, parking standards, and housing approval procedures; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2026, June 25, 2026, and July 30, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of American Canyon conducted a public hearing and unanimously recommended City Council approval of the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council of the City of American Canyon on September 1, 2026, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard regarding the proposed Municipal Code amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon hereby adopts the following amendments to the American Canyon Municipal Code: Chapter 19.27 (Density Bonus) as depicted on Exhibit A, and Chapter 19.28 (Inclusionary Housing) as depicted on Exhibit B, Chapter 19.39 (Accessory Dwelling Units) as depicted on Exhibit C; to clarify administration, retain the City’s inclusionary housing requirements, support affordable housing production, and remain consistent with State law.
SECTION 1. CEQA FINDINGS: The City Council finds the municipal code amendments are exempt from environmental review under CEQA because the amendments are consistent with State law that preempt any inconsistent local ordinance. Thus, the City’s action is not creating a new land use regulation and it can be seen with certainty that no environmental impacts will result from the City’s action. Consequently, and in accordance with CEQA Section 21084(a) and both Section 15002(i)(1) – lack of Local Jurisdictional Discretion – and Section 15061(b)(3) – General Rule of Exemption – of the CEQA Guidelines, the ordinance 125
adoption is exempt from CEQA review and a Notice of Exemption has been prepared for this proposed amendment. Further, Public Resources Codes Section 21080.17 exempts the adoption of an ordinance implementing state law governing accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 3. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. The municipal code amendments are consistent with the Housing Element of the American Canyon General Plan and support implementation of the City's housing goals, policies, and programs. The amendments help remove constraints to housing production, facilitate the development of housing affordable to lower-income households, and ensure continued compliance with State housing law. Specifically, the amendments further:
• Goal H-1 (Housing Supply) by updating local regulations to remove regulatory barriers and maintain a framework that supports housing production for all income levels, consistent with Policies H-1.2 (Zoning Capacity) and H-1.6 (Constraints to Housing Production). • Goal H-2 (Balance of Housing Types) by maintaining and clarifying provisions that support a variety of housing types, including affordable housing, density bonus projects, and accessory dwelling units, consistent with Policies H-2.1 (Diversity of Housing Types), H-2.3 (Housing Incentives), and H-2.7 (Accessory Dwelling Units).
• Goal H-5 (Affordable Housing) by preserving the City's inclusionary housing requirements, continuing implementation of the Affordable Housing Nexus Fee program, and updating density bonus provisions that encourage the production of affordable housing. These amendments directly advance Policies H5.1 (Inclusionary Housing), H-5.8 (Affordable Housing Incentives), H-5.13 (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance), and H-5.14 (Affordable Housing Nexus Fee).
• Goal H-6 (Preservation of Affordability) by strengthening affordability requirements, housing agreement provisions, and long-term affordability standards for inclusionary units, consistent with Policies H-6.3 and H-6.6.
In addition, the amendments implement several Housing Element programs, including Program C (Municipal Code Updates), Program F (Accessory Dwelling Units), Program P (Density Bonus Program), and Program V (Inclusionary Housing Program), all of which call for updates to the Municipal Code to ensure compliance with State law and facilitate the production of housing affordable to a range of income levels.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective effect 30 days after its final passage pursuant to Government Code section 36937.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance is based are located at the City Clerk's office located at 4831 Broadway, Suite 201, American Canyon, CA 94503. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk. 126
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, State of California, held on the 1st day of September, 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, State of California, held on the _________ day of ____________, ______, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_____________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ___________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk Matthew Summers, City Attorney
EXHIBITS
A. American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 19.27 (Density Bonus) B. Chapter 19.28 (Inclusionary Housing)
C. Chapter 19.39 (Accessory Dwelling Units)
127
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 19.27 Density Bonus
19.27.000 Purpose of chapter.
This chapter is intended to implement the requirements of Government Code Section 65915 et seq., and the housing element of the general plan. In the event of any conflict between this chapter and applicable state law, the applicable state law shall control.
19.27.005 Definitions
For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
“Additional density bonus” means the bonus authorized by Government Code § 65915(v) for a housing development that first qualifies for the maximum 50 percent base density bonus and that agrees to provide additional for-sale or rental units affordable to very low-income or moderate-income households.
Moderate-income units used to qualify for this additional bonus may be rental or for-sale. "Affordable housing cost" has the definition set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5.
"Affordable rent" has the definition set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 50053. "Child care facility" means a facility other than a family day care home, including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and school age childcare centers. "Common interest development" has the definition set forth in California Civil Code Section 4100. "Concession" or "incentive" means any of the following:
1. A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission, as provided in Part 2.5 (the State Building Code commencing with Health and Safety Code Section 18901) of Division 13 of the California Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements, and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required, that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions.
2. Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with a housing project, if commercial, office, industrial or other land uses will reduce the cost of a housing development, and if the commercial, office, industrial or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located.
3. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the applicant or the city and approved by the city that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions. 128
This definition does not limit or require the provision of direct financial incentives for a housing development, including the provision of publicly owned land, by the city or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements.
"Density bonus" means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning code provisions and the land use element of the general plan as of the date of application by the applicant to the city.
"Development standard" means the site or construction conditions that apply to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, or other city condition, law, policy, resolution or regulation.
"Director" means the director of community development or the director's designee. "Disabled veteran" has the definition set forth in California Government Code Section 18541. "Equivalent size" means that the replacement dwelling units contain at least the same total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced.
"Homeless person" has the definition set forth in 42 U.S.C. Section 11301 et seq. "Housing development" means a development project for five or more residential units, including mixeduse developments. "Housing development" also includes a subdivision or common interest development, or the substantial rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling where the result of the rehabilitation would be a net increase in the number of residential units. "Lower income households" has the definition set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5.
"Major transit stop" has the definition set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21155. “Maximum allowable residential density” means the greatest number of units allowed, in dwellings per acre, under the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the land use element of the General Plan, or, if a range of density is permitted, the greatest number of units allowed by the specific zoning range, as applicable to the project
"Moderate income households" has the definition for "persons or families of moderate income" set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 50093(b).
"Multifamily dwelling" has the definition set forth in California Government Code Section 65863.4(d). "Property containing existing affordable housing" means any property that includes any parcel on which rental dwelling units are or have been: (1) subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power; (2) occupied by lower or very low income households; or (3) subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and households of lower or very low income. Such rental dwelling units include rental dwelling units that 129
have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the application seeking the density bonus.
"Replace" has the definition set forth in California Government Code Section 65915(c)(3)(B). "Senior citizen housing development" has the definition set forth in California Civil Code Section 51.3. "Special needs housing development" has the definition set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 51312.
"Specific, adverse impact" has the definition set forth in California Government Code Section 6559.5(d)(2). "Transitional foster youth" has the definition set forth in California Education Code Section 66025.9. "Unobstructed access" means access where a resident is able to travel without encountering natural or constructed impediments, as outlined in California Government Code Section 65915(p)(2). "Very low income households" has the definition set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 50105
19.27.010 General density bonus provisions
(A) Application. Any person that desires a density bonus shall make an application on a form approved by the director at the time of submitting an entitlement application for the housing development for which a density bonus is requested. The density bonus provided by this chapter only applies to housing developments consisting of five or more dwelling units. (B) Incentives and Concessions. When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development or for the donation of land for housing within the city, the city shall provide the applicant incentives or concessions for the production of housing units and childcare facilities as provided in this chapter. (C) Available Density Bonus Options.
The planning commission or city council shall grant one density bonus, the amount of which shall be as specified in Section 19.27.030, and incentives or concessions as described in Section 19.27.020, when an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development, excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to this chapter, that shall contain at least one of the following:
(1) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for rental or sale to lower income households. (2) Five percent of the total units of a housing development for rental or sale to very low-income households.
(3) A senior citizen housing development.
130
(4) Ten percent of the total dwelling units of a housing development for sale to moderate-income households, provided that all units in the housing development are offered to the public for purchase. (5) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless persons to be provided at the same affordability level as very low-income units subject to a recorded affordability restriction of fifty-five years. As used in this subsection, "total units" or "total dwelling units" does not include units permitted by a density bonus awarded pursuant to this chapter, but includes units designated to satisfy a requirement under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirements Ordinance (chapter 19.28).
Upon deeming a density bonus application complete and verifying eligibility under Government Code § 65915, the City shall issue a determination awarding one base density bonus, the amount of which shall be as specified in Section 19.27.030, and incentives or concessions as described in Section 19.27.020, when an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development, excluding any units permitted by any density bonus awarded pursuant to this chapter, that shall contain at least one of the qualifying affordability options.
(D) Applicant's Election of Basis for Bonus.
For purposes of calculating the amount of the base density bonus pursuant to Section 19.27.030, the applicant must elect whether the base bonus shall be awarded on the basis of paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4) or (5) of subsection C of this section. A housing development that first qualifies for the maximum base density bonus may also receive an additional density bonus pursuant to Government Code § 65915(v) by providing additional very low-income or moderate-income units as specified in Section 19.27.030(J). (E) Continued Affordability.
(1) Qualified Households. An applicant shall agree that the occupants of the low, very low, and moderate income units that are directly related to the receipt of the density bonus in a housing development or common interest development shall be low, very low, or moderate income households, as applicable. (2) Term.
(a) An applicant shall agree to set rents at affordable rent levels and to the continued affordability of all rental units that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus for a period of fifty-five (55) years or a longer period of time if required by any applicable construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. (b) All for-sale units shall initially be sold to very low, lower, or moderate income households at an affordable housing cost and shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction of fifty-five (55) years or a longer period of time if required by any applicable construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or other subsidy program. If the unit is not purchased by an income-qualified household within one hundred and eighty (180) days after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the unit shall be purchased by a qualified nonprofit housing corporation that meets all of the following requirements, pursuant to a recorded contract that satisfies all of the requirements specified in paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:
131
(i) The nonprofit corporation has a determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service affirming its tax-exempt status pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and is not a private foundation, as defined in Section 509 of the Internal Revenue Code. (ii) The nonprofit corporation is based in California.
(iii) All of the board members of the nonprofit corporation have their primary residence in California. (iv) The primary activity of the nonprofit corporation is the development and preservation of affordable home ownership housing in California that incorporates within their contracts for initial purchase a repurchase option that requires a subsequent purchaser of the property that desires to resell or convey the property to offer the qualified nonprofit corporation the right to repurchase the property prior to selling or conveying that property to any other purchaser pursuant to an equity sharing agreement or affordability restrictions on the sale and conveyance of the property that ensure that the property will be preserved for lower income housing for at least forty-five (45) years for owner-occupied housing units and will be sold or resold only to very low, lower, or moderate income households. (3) Equity Sharing. The city shall require an equity-sharing agreement for all for-sale units, unless such an agreement would be in conflict with the requirements of another public funding source or law. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, moderate-income units provided to qualify a project for the additional density bonus under Section 19.27.030(J) and Government Code § 65915(v) may be offered as rental or for-sale units. Rental units shall be subject to an affordability term of fifty-five (55) years, consistent with subsection (E)(2)(a), or a longer period of time if required by any applicable construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or other subsidy program.
(F) Housing Development Involving Property Containing Existing Affordable Housing. An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or any other incentives or concessions under this chapter if the housing development is proposed on any parcel or parcels on which rental dwelling units that:
(1) Have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the application; (2) Have been subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income;
(3) Subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power; or
(4) Occupied by lower or very low income households, for a proposed housing development involving a property containing existing affordable housing, unless:
(a) The proposed housing development replaces the existing affordable housing units. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least fifty-five years. If the proposed development is for-sale units, the units replaced shall be affordable as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and 132
(b) Either:
(i) The proposed housing development, inclusive of the units replaced, contains affordable units at the percentages set forth in subsection C of this section, or (ii) Each unit in the development, exclusive of a manager's unit or units, is affordable to, and occupied by, either a lower or very low-income household.
19.27.015 Requirements for equity-sharing agreement.
The following provisions shall be included in any equity-sharing agreement required under this chapter:
(A) Upon resale, the seller of the unit may retain the value of any improvements, the down payment, and the seller's proportionate share of appreciation. The city shall recapture any initial subsidy and its proportionate share of appreciation, which amount shall be used within five years for any of the purposes that promote home ownership, as described in California Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2(e). (B) For purposes of thissection, the city's initial subsidy shall be equal to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale, minus the initial sale price to the moderate-income household, as applicable, plus the amount of any down payment assistance or mortgage assistance. If upon resale the market value is lower than the initial market value, the value at the time of the resale shall be used as the initial market value.
(C) For purposes of this section, the city's proportionate share of appreciation shall be equal to the ratio of the initial subsidy to the fair market value of the unit at the time of initial sale.
19.27.020 Incentives and concessions
(A) An applicant for a density bonus pursuant to Section 19.27.010 may submit a proposal for the specific incentives or concessions that the applicant requests pursuant to this chapter, and may request a meeting with the director.
(B) Subject to subsection C below, the applicant shall receive the following number of incentives or concessions:
(1) One incentive or concession for projects that include at least ten percent (10%) of the total units for lower income households, at least five percent (5%) for very low income households, or at least ten percent (10%) for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.
(2) Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least seventeen percent (17%) of the total units for lower income households, at least ten percent (10%) for very low income households, or at least twenty percent (20%) for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.
(3) Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least twenty-four percent (24%) of the total units for lower income households, at least fifteen percent (15%) for very low income households, or at 133
least thirty percent (30%) for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.
(4) Five incentives or concessions for a project in which between eighty to one hundred percent (80-100%) of the originally proposed units are restricted to lower-income households and the remaining proposed units are for moderate-income households, except for the manager’s unit. If the project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or is located in a very low vehicle travel area in a designated county, the applicant shall also receive a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet. (5) One incentive or concession for projects that include at least twenty percent (20%) of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development. If a project includes at least twenty-three percent (23%) of the total units for lower income students in a student housing project, the applicant shall instead receive two incentives or concessions.
(6) Four incentives or concessions for projects that include at least sixteen percent (16%) of the units for very low income households or at least forty-five percent (45%) for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale. (C) The planning commission or city council shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant, unless it makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that:
(1) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual affordable housing cost reductions, or rents for the targeted units will not be set as specified in Section 19.27.010(E); (2) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety, or on any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate income households; or
(3) The concession or improvement would be contrary to state or federal law. (D) The City is not required to provide incentives or concessions to transient housing, including a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast inn. This subsection does not apply to a residential hotel or a resident's use or marketing of their unit as short-term lodging.
(E) A grant of a incentive or concession may not result in a proposed project with a commercial floor area ratio that is greater than two and a half times the premises' current allowed base zone commercial floor area ratio. This limitation does not apply to a project which submitted a preliminary application or an entitlement application prior to January 1, 2026.
(F) Projects that qualify for the additional density bonus pursuant to Government Code, § 65915(v) remain eligible for incentives or concessions pursuant to this chapter and Government Code, § 65915(d). The number of incentives or concessions shall be determined in accordance with state law and shall not be reduced due to a request for the additional density bonus. 134
19.27.025 Waiver or reduction of development standards. (A) An applicant may submit a proposal to the city and request a meeting with the director to waive or reduce development standards that the applicant believes will physically preclude housing construction that satisfies Section 19.27.010(C) criteria at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this chapter. Such proposal may not increase the number of incentives or concessions that the applicant is entitled to under Section 19.27.020.
(B) The planning commission or city council shall waive or reduce an applicant's development standard request, unless it makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that:
(1) The waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety, or on any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact; or (2) The waiver or reduction would be contrary to state or federal law.
19.27.030 Calculation of density bonus
(A) The applicant is entitled to a density bonus that varies according to the percentage of affordable housing units that exceed the percentage established in Section 19.27.010(C). (B) For housing developments meeting the lower income household criteria of Section 19.27.010(C)(1), the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:
Table 19.27.030(B)
Density Bonus for Lower Income Units
Percentage Low-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
10 20
11 21.5
12 23
13 24.5
14 26
15 27.5
17 30.5
18 32
19 33.5
20 35
21 38.75
135
22 42.5
23 46.25
24 50
(C) For housing developments meeting the very low income criteria of Section 19.27.010(C)(2), the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:
Table 19.27.030(C)
Density Bonus for Very Low Income Units
Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
12 38.75
13 42.5
14 46.25
15 50
(D) For housing developments meeting the criteria of Sections 19.27.010(C)(3), and 19.27.010(C)(5), (senior citizen and transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless persons), the density bonus shall be 20 percent.
(E) For housing developments meeting the moderate income criteria of Section 19.27.010(C)(4), the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:
Table 19.27.030(E)
Density Bonus for Moderate Income Units
Percentage Moderate Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 10 5
136
11 6
127
138
149
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
31 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
35 30
36 31
37 32
137
38 33
39 34
40 35
41 38.75
42 42.5
43 46.25
44 50
(F) All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (G) A density bonus shall not require a general plan amendment, zoning change, other discretionary approval, or study other than those provided under California Government Code section 65915(j)(1). (H) A density bonus shall not require the city to waive any unrelated development standard ordinance, except as provided for in Sections 19.27.20 and 19.27.25. (I) A project in which between eighty to one hundred percent (80-100%) of the originally proposed units are restricted to lower income households and the remaining proposed units are for moderate-income households, except for the manager’s unit, shall be entitled to a density bonus equal to 80 percent of the number of units reserved for lower income households. If the project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or is located in a very low vehicle travel area, the City shall not impose any maximum controls on density.
(J) Additional Density Bonus Pursuant to Government Code, § 65915(v):
(1) Eligibility. A housing development that first qualifies for the maximum base density bonus of 50 percent under this chapter by providing either (i) at least 15 percent of the total units for very low-income households, or (ii) at least 24 percent of the total units for lower income households, or (iii) at least 44 percent of the total units for moderate-income households, may receive an additional density bonus by providing additional rental or for sale very low-income or moderate-income units as described below. (2) Additional Bonus for Very Low-Income Units. If the applicant provides additional very low-income units beyond those required to achieve the maximum base bonus, the project shall receive the following additional density bonus (calculated on the project’s maximum allowable residential density):
Table 19.27.030(J)
Additional Density Bonus for Very Low-Income Units Pursuant to Government Code, § 65915(v) Additional % Very Low-Income Units Additional % Density Bonus 138
5 20%
6 23.75%
7 27.5%
8 31.25%
9 35%
10 38.75%
(3) Additional Bonus for Moderate-Income Units. If the applicant provides additional moderate-income units beyond those required to achieve the maximum base bonus, the project shall receive the following additional density bonus (calculated on the project’s maximum allowable residential density). Moderateincome units used for this subsection may be rental or for-sale:
Table 19.27.030(J.3)
Additional Density Bonus for Moderate-Income Units Pursuant to Government Code, § 65915(v) Additional % Moderate-Income Units Additional % Density Bonus 5 20%
6 22.5%
7 25%
8 27.5%
9 30%
10 32.5%
11 35%
12 38.75%
13 42.5%
14 46.25%
15 50%
(4) Total Allowable Bonus. A project that qualifies under this subsection may receive a bonus increase in addition to any increase in density granted by subsections (A) through (I), consistent with Government Code § 65915(v).
139
(5) Rounding. Fractional units resulting from the computation of the additional bonus shall be rounded up to the next whole number, consistent with subsection (F) of this section. (K) Commercial Development Bonus.
(1) The City shall grant a commercial developer a “commercial development bonus” if the commercial developer enters into an agreement for partnered housing with an affordable housing developer to continue affordable housing through a joint project or two separate projects, pursuant to Government Code section 65915.7.
(2) Housing shall be constructed on the site of the commercial development or on a site that is all of the following:
(a) Within the boundaries of the local government.
(b) In close proximity to public amenities including schools and employment centers. (c) Located within one-half mile of a major transit stop. (3) A commercial development bonus awarded pursuant to this subsection includes:
(a) Up to a 20-percent increase in maximum allowable intensity in the General Plan. (b) Up to a 20-percent increase in maximum allowable floor area ratio. (c) Up to a 20-percent increase in maximum height requirements. (d) Up to a 20-percent reduction in minimum parking requirements. (e) Use of a limited-use/limited-application elevator for upper floor accessibility. (f) An exception to a zoning ordinance or other land use regulation
19.27.035 Additional density bonus through donation of land (A) When an applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or other residential development donates land to the city, as provided for in this section, the applicant shall be entitled to a fifteen percent increase above the maximum residential density under the applicable zoning and the land use element of the general plan for the entire development, as follows:
Table 19.27.035
Affordable Housing Land Donation
Percentage Very Low Income Percentage Density Bonus
10 15
11 16
12 17
13 18
14 19
140
15 20
16 21
17 22
18 23
19 24
20 25
21 26
22 27
23 28
24 29
25 30
26 21
27 32
28 33
29 34
30 35
(B) The land dedication density bonus shall be in addition to any increase in density mandated by Section
19.27.010(C), up to a maximum combined density increase of thirty-five percent, if an applicant seeks increases required pursuant to both this section and Section 19.27.010(C). (1) All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the authority of the city to require a developer to donate land as a condition of development. (C) An applicant shall be eligible for an increased density bonus described in this section if all the following conditions are met:
(1) The applicant donates and transfers land no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map or parcel map or residential development application. (2) The developable acreage and zoning classification of the transferred land will provide at least ten percent of the residential units in the proposed development to be affordable to very low-income households.
(3) The transferred land is at least one acre or of sufficient size to permit development of at least forty units, has the appropriate general plan designation, is appropriately zoned for development as affordable housing, and is or will be served by adequate public facilities and infrastructure. (a) The land must have appropriate zoning and development standards to make the development of the affordable units feasible.
(b) No later than the final subdivision map, parcel map, or of the residential development approval date, the transferred land must have all of the permits and approvals, other than building permits, necessary for the development of the very low income housing units on the transferred land, except that the local government may subject the proposed development to subsequent design permit, to the extent authorized by California Government Code Section 65583.2(i), if the design is not reviewed by the city prior to the time of transfer.
141
(4) The transferred land and the affordable units shall be subject to a deed restriction ensuring continued affordability of the units consistent with Section 19.27.010(E)(1) and (2), which restriction shall be recorded on the property at the time of the transfer.
(5) The land is transferred to the city or to a housing developer approved by the city. The city may require the applicant to identify and transfer the land to such housing developer. (6) The transferred land must be within the boundary of the proposed development or, if the city agrees, within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed development. (7) A proposed very low-income unit funding source shall be identified no later than the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application approval date.
19.27.040 Additional density bonus or concession or incentive through provision of housing with a child care facility.
(A) When an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that conforms to the requirements of Section 19.27.010(C) and includes a childcare facility located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to, the project, the planning commission or city council shall grant either of the following:
(1) An additional residential square footage density bonus equal to or greater than the child care facility square footage; or
(2) An additional concession or incentive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the childcare facility construction.
(B) The planning commission or city council shall require, as a condition of approving the housing development, that the following occur:
(1) The child care facility must remain in operation as long as or longer than the density bonus units affordable term pursuant to Section 19.27.010(E).
(2) Of the children who attend the child care facility, the children of very low income households, lower income households, or moderate income households must equal a percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage of dwelling units that are required for very low income households, lower income households, or moderate income households pursuant to Section 19.27.010(C). (C) Notwithstanding any requirement of this section, the planning commission or city council is not required to provide a density bonus or concession for a childcare facility if it finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the community has adequate childcare facilities. (D) Density bonus units do not have to be located in the same geographic area of the housing development.
(E) Granting a concession or incentive shall not in and of itself, require a general plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval.
142
(F) Section 9.27.040 does not limit or require the city to provide direct financial incentives for housing development, including the provision of publicly owned land, by the city, county, or city and county, or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements.
19.27.045 City's discretion in granting density bonus.
Nothing in this chapter limits a project’s eligibility for the additional density bonus authorized by Government Code § 65915(v). Where applicable, a project may receive the additional density bonus pursuant to Section 19.27.030(J) in addition to the maximum base density bonus set forth in Section
19.27.030(A)-(I), provided that all eligibility criteria in state law and this chapter are met.
19.27.050 Parking requirements
(A) An applicant of a development meeting the criteria of Section 19.27.010(C) may request the city not require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, that exceeds the following ratios:
(1) Zero to one bedroom: one on-site parking space per unit. (2) Two to three bedrooms: one and one-half on-site parking spaces per unit. (3) Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces per unit. (B) Notwithstanding subsection (A), if a development includes at least twenty percent (20%) lower income units, or at least eleven percent (11%) very low income units, is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development, then, upon request, the City shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds one-half spaces per unit. Notwithstanding subsection (A), if a development includes at least forty percent (40%) moderate-income units, is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and the residents of the development have unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development then, upon request, the City shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds one-half spaces per bedroom. (C) An applicant of a development project that consists solely of rental units affordable lower income households (exclusive of a manager's unit) may apply for a waiver of vehicular parking standards if the project is any of the following:
(1) Located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and has unobstructed access to the major transit stop;
(2) A for-rent housing development for individuals who are fifty-five (55) years of age or older that complies with Sections 51.2 and 51.3 of the Civil Code, and has either paratransit service, or unobstructed access to a fixed bus route service that is within one-half mile and operates at least eight times per day.; or
143
(3) A special needs rental housing development project, as defined in Section 51312 of the Health and Safety Code, or a supportive needs housing development, as defined in Section 50675.14 of the Health and Safety Code.
(E) If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this section, a development may provide "on-site parking" through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking.
(F) An applicant that meets the requirements of Section 19.27.010(C) may request additional parking incentives or concessions beyond those provided in this Section, subject to Section 19.27.020. (G) Notwithstanding subsections B and C, the city may impose a higher vehicular parking ratio, not to exceed the ratio described in subsection A, based upon substantial evidence found in a parking study prepared at city expense by the city or an independent consultant in the last seven years that includes:
(1) An analysis of parking availability;
(2) Differing levels of transit access;
(3) Walkability access to transit services;
(4) The potential for shared parking;
(5) The effect of parking requirements on the cost of market-rate and subsidized developments; and (6) The lower rates of car ownership for low- and very low-income individuals, including seniors and special needs individuals.
The city shall make findings, based on a parking study completed in conformity with this section, supporting the need for the higher parking ratio.
19.27.060 Denial to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession. (A) The applicant may initiate judicial proceedings if the city refuses to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. Nothing in this subsection shall be interpreted to require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that has a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, upon public health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Nothing in this subsection shall be interpreted to require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. (B) The city shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive. 144
EXHIBIT B
Chapter 19.28 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
19.28.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to implement the inclusionary housing program set forth in the housing element of the American Canyon general plan.
(Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2016-05 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2019-10 § 1, 2019.)
19.28.020 Definitions.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this chapter shall have the following meanings:
"Above moderate-income households" are those households with income of more than one hundred twenty percent of area median income for Napa County, as published by the state of California Department of Housing and Community Development, and its successors. "Affordable housing nexus fee" is an impact fee to fund affordable housing demand created by new market-rate housing and new nonresidential development, in an amount set by the city council by resolution.
"Apartment" is a multifamily development residential project that creates residential dwelling units that are rented or leased.
"Financially infeasible" is a residential project, once all costs for development are established, (i.e. land acquisition, entitlements, site development fees, and construction costs), the developer (and/or their creditors) would not achieve an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of at least six percent. "Gross square feet" see ACMC Section 19.04.030.
"Inclusionary units" are those that are required to be provided at affordable rents or sales prices to specified households.
"Lower income households" are those households with income of no more than eighty percent of the area median income for Napa County, adjusted for household size, as published by the state of California Department of Housing and Community Development, and its successors. "Market rate units" means dwelling units in a residential project which are not affordable units or target units.
"Maximum residential density" means the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a residential project by the city's zoning ordinance and by the land use element of the general plan on the date that the application for the residential project is deemed complete, excluding any density bonus or other units required to be excluded from the maximum residential density calculation by applicable State law. If the 145
maximum density allowed by the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed by the land use element of the general plan, the land use element density shall prevail or applicable State law. "Median income" means the median income, adjusted for family size, applicable to Napa County as published annually pursuant to Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6932 (or its successor provision) by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. "Moderate income households" are those households whose income does not exceed the moderate income limits applicable to Napa County as published annually pursuant to Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6932 (or its successor provision) by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
"Nonresidential development" means any development in the city for which a discretionary permit or building permit is required, other than those developments involving solely residential projects, that includes an addition, the new construction of gross square feet of nonresidential space, the conversion of a residential use to a nonresidential use, or the conversion of one nonresidential use to another nonresidential use.
"Residential ownership project" means any residential project that may legally advertise, sell, or otherwise transfer dwelling units for sale to an individual homeowner. A residential ownership project also includes the conversion of rental apartments to condominiums.
"Residential project" means any development for which one or more building permits may be issued for one or more new dwelling units, conversion of nonresidential uses to dwelling units, or a condominium conversion. Residential projects include both residential ownership projects and residential rental projects.
"Residential rental unit" means any residential unit that is rented to its resident(s). "Senior citizen residential project" means a senior citizen housing development with at least thirty-five dwelling units as defined in Civil Code Section 51.3, or a mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements for older persons pursuant to Civil Code Sections 798.76 or 799.5. "Stacked Flat” means a multi-family residential building with single-level dwelling units, stacked on top of each other in a multi-story building.
"Target unit" means a deed-restricted dwelling unit within a residential project that is reserved for sale or rent at an affordable rent or affordable sales price to very low, low, or moderate income households. "Very low income households" are those households with income of no more than fifty percent of the area median income for Napa County, adjusted for household size, as published by the state of California Department of Housing and Community Development, and its successors. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2006-08 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2006-09 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2016-05 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2019-10 § 1, 2019.)
19.28.030 Applicability.
146
(A) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to:
(1) Residential projects containing five or more residential parcels or units whose initial sales prices or rents will be affordable (as defined in Chapter 19.04, Definitions) to above moderate-income households. (2) Residential rental projects containing five or more rental dwelling units. (3) Nonresidential projects.
(B) These provisions shall not apply to:
(1) Any subdivision for which the final or parcel map was recorded, or any residential project subject to discretionary approval by the city for which a building permit has been issued by the city prior to the effective date of this chapter, unless approval or conditional approval of the subdivision or project was expressly conditioned upon participation in an inclusionary program such as that established by this chapter, or such participation was expressly required as an environmental mitigation measure for the subdivision.
(2) New residential development that is deed restricted to be affordable to lower income households. (3) New nonresidential development with a bona fide tax-exempt status. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2006-08 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2006-09 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2016-05 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2019-10 § 1, 2019.)
19.28.040 Inclusionary requirements.
(A) Required Number and Type of Inclusionary Units.
(1) Residential Ownership projects subject to the provisions of this chapter shall provide a number of inclusionary units equal to at least ten percent of applicable project units (per this chapter) at prices or rents affordable to lower-income households, unless one of the alternative actions set forth in this chapter is approved. Such inclusionary units may be either ownership units or rental units. (2) Residential Rental projects subject to the provisions of this chapter shall provide a number of inclusionary units equal to at least five percent of applicable project units (per this chapter) at prices or rents affordable to very low-income households, five percent affordable to low-income households, and five percent to moderate income households unless one of the alternative actions set forth in this chapter is approved. The inclusionary units shall be rental units. (3) In determining the number of inclusionary units to be provided, any decimal fraction of 0.3 or more shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of less than 0.3 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number.
(4) Where an even number of inclusionary units are required of a residential rental housing project, a larger number of units affordable to very low-income households shall be provided (e.g., if the inclusionary requirement equals four units, two shall be affordable to very low-income households and 147
one shall be affordable to a lower-income household and one shall be affordable to a moderate income household). If only one inclusionary unit is required, such unit must be affordable to a very low-income household.
(B) Development Standards for Target Units.
(1) Inclusionary units shall be constructed concurrently with market rate units unless both the city and the developer/applicant agree within the housing agreement to an alternative schedule for development. (2) Inclusionary units shall be evenly distributed throughout the project, except that the decision-making body may waive this requirement if it finds that such distribution is infeasible for one or more of the following reasons:
(a) Significant topographic or other constraints exist rendering such distribution infeasible. (b) Substantially improved site design will result from such waiver. (c) Substantially improved building design and an improved unit amenity level will result from such waiver. (d) Significant economic hardships will result from such distribution that does not apply to other projects in the city.
(e) Significant economic hardships will result from such distribution for the developer of the inclusionary units receiving financial assistance from federal, state, or local governmental agencies if such waiver is not granted.
(3) The number of bedrooms of the inclusionary units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix of the market rate units of the housing development; except that the developer may include a higher proportion of inclusionary units with more bedrooms.
(4) The design and appearance of the inclusionary units shall be consistent with the design permit for the housing development.
(5) The applicant may reduce the size or interior amenities of the inclusionary units. (6) Inclusionary units shall comply with all applicable development standards, except those which may be modified as provided by this chapter.
(C) Continued Affordability of Ownership Units. Inclusionary units shall remain restricted and affordable to the targeted household(s) for a period of at least fifty-five years, or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. Covenants evidencing these restrictions shall be recorded against the property. (D) Continued Affordability of Rental Units. Inclusionary units shall remain restricted and affordable to the targeted household(s) for a period of at least fifty-five years, or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. Covenants evidencing these restrictions shall be recorded against the property. 148
(E) Determination of Affordable Rents and Sales Prices. In determining the maximum affordable rent or affordable sales price of inclusionary units, the following household and unit size assumptions shall be used, unless the project is subject to different assumptions imposed by other governmental regulations:
SRO (residential hotel) unit 75% of 1 person
0 bedroom (studio) 1 person
1 bedroom 2 person
2 bedroom 3 person
3 bedroom 4 person
4 bedroom 6 person
(F) Housing Agreement. A housing agreement consistent with this chapter is required for a housing project (e.g., tract maps, parcel maps, design permits, planned development, or conditional use permits) that provides inclusionary units.
(G) If a project provides more inclusionary units than required under this chapter, the project owner may request a one‑time inclusionary unit credit, subject to applicable law and to approval of the city council.
This credit may be used to satisfy the inclusionary unit requirement of another project. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project receiving the inclusionary unit transfer qualifies for the credit under the current inclusionary ordinance and all applicable state laws. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2006-08 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2006-09 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2016-05 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2019-10 § 1, 2019.)
19.28.050 Inclusionary alternatives.
(A) It is the intent of these provisions to require that inclusionary units be provided within each project so they are dispersed within the community.
(B) The decision-making body may approve one of the following alternatives to providing inclusionary units on-site if the applicant demonstrates either (a) that on-site inclusionary units are financially infeasible due to project size, location or site characteristics, or (b) that the proposed alternative would provide affordable housing opportunities for lower-income households to an equal or greater extent:
(1) Provide some or all the required inclusionary units at an approved off-site location. (2) The applicant may dedicate suitable land to the city, or to another entity the city approves, for the construction of the inclusionary units. The city evaluates the dedication based on the site’s suitability, such as location, size, zoning, expected construction timing and other relevant factors. The city also compares the dedicated land’s fair market value to the in-lieu contribution that would otherwise apply under this chapter.
(3) Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing rental units. (a) The term of existing rental unit affordability shall be extended fifty-five years longer than any existing affordability term.
149
(b) The existing units shall be affordable to the same income groups as the on-site inclusionary units that they replace.
(4) Provide an affordability term longer than fifty-five years for fewer than fifteen percent of the units. (5) Provide fewer than fifteen percent inclusionary units, but increase the number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units that are provided.
(6) Provide fewer than fifteen percent inclusionary units, but increase the percentage of lower-income units.
(7) Provide greater than fifteen percent inclusionary overall, but a smaller percentage of lower-income units.
(8) Extend the affordability terms of existing inclusionary units. (9) Any combination of the above alternatives.
(10) Other alternatives that achieve inclusionary housing not listed above. (11) As a last resort, the developer may be allowed to pay in-lieu nexus fees, in an amount set by the affordable housing nexus fee adopted by resolution by the city council. (a) The in-lieu contribution shall be paid to the city at the issuance of the building permit for each unit. (b) Such contribution shall be deposited in the city housing fund and can only be used to provide housing affordable to very low and low-income households.
(Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2006-08 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2006-09 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2009-09 § 3, 2009; Ord. 2016-05 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2019-10 § 1, 2019.)
19.28.060 City assistance.
The following development concessions may be approved by the decision-making body if it finds that evidence presented by the applicant shows that on-site inclusionary units are financially infeasible due to project size, location or site characteristics, or that the alternative would further housing opportunities for lower-income households to an equal or greater extent. Possible assistance includes the following:
(A) A reduction of site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements which exceed the minimum building standards provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the California Health and Safety Code for the inclusionary units. These may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:
(1) Increase the allowable density limits of the zoning district (i.e., a density bonus); (2) Reduced minimum lot sizes and/or dimensions;
150
(3) Reduced minimum lot setbacks;
(4) Reduced minimum outdoor and/or private outdoor living area; (5) Increased maximum lot coverage;
(6) Increased maximum building height and/or stories;
(7) Reduced on-site parking standards, including the number or size of spaces and garage requirements; (8) Reduced minimum building separation requirements;
(9) Reduced street standards, e.g., reduced minimum street widths; (10) Waived, reduced, or deferred planning, plan check, building permit, and/or development impact fees (e.g., capital facilities, park, or traffic fees); or
(11) Any development standard concession not listed above. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2006-08 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2006-09 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2016-05 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2019-10 § 1, 2019.)
19.28.070 Application procedures.
In addition to the application contents required for any associated permits or approvals, an applicant proposing to include inclusionary units in a project shall provide the following information:
(A) The number of proposed inclusionary units and an indication of the target households; (B) Proposed sales prices or rents for the inclusionary units; (C) The location, unit size (square feet), and number of bedrooms of inclusionary units; (D) A description of any proposed differences between the inclusionary units and other project units in terms of construction, appearance, or amenities;
(E) A schedule for completion and occupancy of the inclusionary units compared to a schedule for completion and occupancy of market rate units in the subject development; and (F) An offer to reserve inclusionary units for target households for at least fifty-five years when proposing ownership units and fifty-five years when proposing rental units. (Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2006-08 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2006-09 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2016-05 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2019-10 § 1, 2019.)
19.28.080 Housing agreement.
151
(A) Where required by this chapter, applicants/developers shall draft and agree to enter into a housing agreement with the city. The terms of the draft agreement shall be reviewed and revised as appropriate by the community development director, who shall formulate a recommendation to the decision-making body for final approval.
(B) The housing agreement shall include at least the following:
(1) The number of inclusionary units, bedroom counts for the inclusionary units and their target households;
(2) The standards for determining the affordable rent or affordable sales price and housing cost for the inclusionary units;
(3) The location, unit size (square feet), and number of bedrooms of the inclusionary units; (4) The tenure of use restrictions for the inclusionary units; (5) A schedule for completion and occupancy of the inclusionary units and market rate units; (6) A description of remedies for breach of the agreement by either party (the city may identify tenants or qualified purchasers as third party beneficiaries under the agreement); (7) Other provisions to ensure implementation and compliance with this chapter. (C) In the case of for-sale inclusionary units in a residential ownership project, the housing agreement shall include the following conditions governing the sale and use of inclusionary units during the applicable use restriction period:
(1) The inclusionary units shall be sold to and owner-occupied by eligible lower-income households at an affordable sales price and housing cost.
(2) The initial and subsequent purchasers of an inclusionary unit shall execute an instrument or agreement approved by the city restricting the sale of the inclusionary unit in accordance with this chapter during the applicable use restriction period. Such instrument or agreement shall be recorded against the parcel containing the inclusionary unit and shall contain such provisions as the city may require to ensure continued compliance with this chapter.
(3) The city shall establish maximum resale prices for inclusionary units during the applicable use restriction period, taking into consideration such factors as cost-of-living increases, any improvements made to the unit, and customary closing costs.
(4) The owner of an inclusionary unit who wishes to sell the unit shall provide the first right of refusal to purchase the unit to the city and send written notice to the city of their intent to sell not less than sixty calendar days prior to the intended date of sale of the unit. Upon receipt of the owner's notice, the city shall have sixty calendar days to purchase the unit or to assign its right of refusal. 152
(5) The owner shall share with the city any amount received by the owner as a result of the first sale following expiration of the applicable use restriction period that is above the maximum resale price. The city shall deposit its share of any such proceeds in its housing fund. (D) In the case of rental inclusionary units in a residential rental project, the housing agreement shall provide for the following conditions governing the use of inclusionary units during the use restriction period:
(1) The rules and procedures for qualifying tenants, establishing affordable rent, filling vacancies, and maintaining inclusionary units for qualified tenants;
(2) Provisions requiring owners of the residential rental project to verify tenant incomes on an annual basis and maintain books and records to demonstrate compliance with this chapter; (3) Provisions requiring owners of the residential rental project to submit an annual report to the city which includes the name, address, and income of each person occupying the inclusionary units, and which identifies the bedroom size and monthly rent or cost of each inclusionary unit. (E) Following execution of the agreement by all parties, the completed housing agreement, or memorandum thereof, shall be recorded and the conditions therefore filed and recorded on the parcel or parcels designated for the construction of inclusionary units. The approval and recordation shall take place prior to final map approval, or, where a map is not being processed, prior to issuance of building permits for such parcels or units. The housing agreement shall be binding to all future owners and successors in interest.
(Ord. 2001-02 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2006-08 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2006-09 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2016-05 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2019-10 § 1, 2019.)
19.28.090 Nonresidential inclusionary requirements.
Nonresidential projects subject to the provisions of this chapter shall provide the applicable affordable housing nexus fee for each square foot of new construction. The affordable housing nexus fee shall be adopted by resolution by the city council.
(Ord. 2016-05 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2019-10 § 1, 2019.)
19.28.100 Waiver.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the requirements of this chapter shall be waived, adjusted or reduced if the applicant shows that there is no reasonable relationship between the impact of a proposed residential project and the requirements of this chapter, or that applying the requirements of this chapter would take property in violation of the United States or California Constitution. To receive a waiver, adjustment or reduction under this section, the applicant must make a showing under this section when applying for a first approval for the residential project, and/or as part of any appeal which the city provides as part of the process for the first approval. 153
EXHIBIT C
Chapter 19.39 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
19.39.010 Purpose of the chapter
The purpose of this chapter is to increase the supply of smaller units and rental housing units by allowing accessory dwelling units on lots containing a single-family dwelling in various residential districts as shown on Table 19.10.040, and to establish design and development standards for accessory dwelling units to ensure that they are compatible with existing neighborhoods and consistent with the general plan and its elements. Accessory dwelling units contribute needed housing to the community's housing stock. (Ord. No. 2024-04 Section 6; Ord. 2017-05 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2020-04 § 1, 2020.)
19.39.020 Applicability
This chapter applies to all residentially zoned lots that contain a single-family or multifamily dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) does not count toward the maximum allowed density of the lot on which it is located. An ADU is considered a residential use and is consistent with the lot’s General Plan designation and zoning.
(Ord. No. 2024-04 Section 6; Ord. 2017-05 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2020-04 § 1, 2020.)
19.39.030 General plan consistency
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) that complies with this chapter is considered an accessory use or accessory structure. An ADU does not count toward the maximum residential density allowed on the lot where it is located. An ADU is considered a residential use that is consistent with the lot’s General Plan and zoning designation. ADUs also may not be counted or used when applying any local ordinance, policy, or program that limits residential growth, as provided by Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(8). (Ord. No. 2024-04 Section 6; Ord. 2017-05 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2020-04 § 1, 2020.)
19.39.040 Definitions
"Accessory dwelling unit" means any of the following:
(1) One dwelling unit attached to, within, or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling unit that is on the same parcel in areas zoned to allow single-family and/or multifamily dwelling residential use, and provides permanent and independent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation for one or more persons.
(2) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. (4) Multiple accessory dwelling units up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units within portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not 154
limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings, as defined in Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e)(1)(C).
"Junior accessory dwelling unit" means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet of interior livable space that is contained entirely within the existing footprint of a single-family residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.
"Primary residence" means the residential dwelling that existed on the parcel before or constructed concurrent with the accessory dwelling unit.
(Ord. No. 2024-04 Section 6; Ord. 2017-05 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2020-04 § 1, 2020.)
19.39.050 Development standards—Generally
(A) Each accessory dwelling unit requires approval of a building permit. (B) The applicant of each accessory dwelling unit building permit application shall identify the anticipated rent and household size of the new accessory dwelling unit. (C) The number of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units permitted on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling shall be consistent with Government Code Section 66323 and this Chapter.
(D) A multi-family or single-family primary residence dwelling must exist on the parcel before the accessory dwelling unit is built or it shall be built concurrently with the accessory dwelling unit. (E) Accessory dwelling units qualifying under Government Code Section 66323 shall be subject only to the development standards expressly authorized by Government Code Sections 66321 and 66323 and shall not be subject to any other local development or design standards. (F) Accessory Dwelling Living Area Standard.
(1) A Detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed one 1,200 square feet, unless:
(a) On a single-family lot, the detached ADU converts a previously-permitted accessory structure which is greater than 1,200 square feet. In this circumstance, the ADU may equal the square footage of the existing accessory structure.
(b) On a lot with a multifamily primary dwelling, the detached ADU is not subject to a square foot limit (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (e)(1)(A), (C), and (D)). (2) Attached ADUs shall not exceed 1,200 square feet, except this limitation shall not apply to conversion ADUs under Government Code 66323(a)(1) or (a)(3).
(3) A Junior accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 500 square feet. 155
(G) Fire Sprinkler Requirements.
(1) Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) must comply with all applicable state fire safety requirements and locally adopted building and fire codes in Title 16. These requirements may include, but are not limited to, adequate water supply and fire department access.
(2) Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are not required to have fire sprinklers unless fire sprinklers are also required in the primary dwelling. The following standards apply to this requirement:
(a) When the primary residence has fire sprinklers, the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be constructed with fire sprinklers.
(b) When the primary residence does not have fire sprinklers, the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit do not require fire sprinklers, and the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement to retrofit the primary dwelling with fire sprinklers.
(H) The City shall not require recordation of a deed restriction except where authorized by state law.
Owner-occupancy shall not be required for ADUs. Owner occupancy of the primary home is required only when there is no separate sanitation facilities for the JADU. (4) When the applicant is a qualified nonprofit housing organization, a deed restriction is not required. (I) Impact Fees.
(1) Accessory dwelling units less than 750 square feet or less of interior livable space and all junior accessory dwelling units with 500 square feet or less of interior livable space shall be exempt from all city impact fees.
(2) Impact fees for accessory dwelling units equal to or greater than 750 square feet are exempt from water and sewer capacity fees. All remaining impact fees shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.
(J) Accessory Dwelling Units on Multifamily Dwellings. The building division shall review and approve ministerially accessory dwelling units under the following conditions. (1) Non-habitable area within an existing multifamily dwelling structure, including, but not limited to:
storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements or garages, may be converted to one or more accessory dwelling units if each accessory dwelling unit complies with state dwelling unit building standards.
(2) An existing multifamily dwelling shall be permitted to accommodate additional accessory dwelling units in an amount up to twenty-five percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units. (3) Multifamily lots may include detached ADUs consistent with Government Code Section 66323(a)(4), up to eight units not exceeding existing unit count.
156
(K) CC&Rs. As defined in California Civil Code Section 4751 or any successor statute, any covenant, condition, and restriction (CC&R) or contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use that meets the above-described minimum standards (subsections F and G) established for those units shall be void and unenforceable. Reasonable restrictions include restrictions that do not unreasonably increase the cost to construct, effectively prohibit the construction of, or extinguish the ability to otherwise construct, an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit. Reasonable restrictions shall not include any fee, charge, or other financial requirement related to the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit. (L) ADUs that qualify under Government Code Section 66323 shall be approved ministerially and are not subject to local development or design standards, except as specifically allowed by state law. (Ord. No. 2024-04 Section 6; Ord. 2017-05 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2020-04 § 1, 2020.)
19.39.060 Junior accessory dwelling unit standards
(A) Each junior accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the following building standards. (1) The dwelling must have its own exterior entrance.
(2) The kitchen must include a cooking facility with appliances and includes a food preparation counter and storage cabinets.
(3) The bathroom may be included in the unit or shared with the primary residence. (4) Junior accessory dwelling units are exempt from the building code wall separation requirements with the primary residence.
(Ord. No. 2024-04 Section 6; Ord. 2017-05 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2020-04 § 1, 2020.)
19.39.070 Parking standards
Parking shall not be required for ADUs qualifying under Government Code Section 66323. (Ord. No. 2024-04 Section 6; Ord. 2017-05 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2020-04 § 1, 2020.)
19.39.080 Operational standards
(A) The accessory dwelling unit may not be sold separately from the primary residence except as authorized by Government Code Section 66341.
(B) Minimum rental term for an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is thirty consecutive days.
(Ord. No. 2024-04 Section 6; Ord. 2017-05 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2020-04 § 1, 2020.) 157
19.39.090 Design standards
Accessory dwelling units shall comply with the following standards. (A) An accessory dwelling unit connected to an onsite water treatment system requires a percolation test completed within the last five years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last ten years.
(Ord. No. 2024-04 Section 6; Ord. 2017-05 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2020-04 § 1, 2020.)
19.39.100 Review and approval process
Permits for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units shall be reviewed ministerially through the building division in accordance to (a) through (d). (A) The building division shall 'approve or deny' the application to create an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit within sixty days from the date the building division receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. (B) If the permit application to create an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted concurrently with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the building division may delay acting on the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit permit application until the building division acts on the new single-family dwelling permit application, but the application to create the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered ministerial without discretionary review or a hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the sixty-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay.
(C) Within 15 business days of receipt of an application for an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit, the Building Division shall determine whether the application is complete and shall provide written notice to the applicant.
(D). If the application is determined to be incomplete, the written notice shall identify all deficiencies and describe the additional information required to complete the application. The applicant may cure the deficiencies in accordance with state law.
(E). The City shall provide a process for an applicant to appeal a determination that an application is incomplete or denied. A final written determination on appeal shall be issued no later than 60 business days following receipt of the written appeal.
(Ord. No. 2024-04 Section 6; Ord. 2020-04 § 1, 2020.)
19.39.110 Code enforcement
For accessory dwelling units built before January 1, 2020, the property owner may request delayed enforcement of building standards for five years pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.12. 158
(A) There shall be no delays granted after January 1, 2030. (B) There shall be no delays granted if the delay of the correction will cause a violation needed to protect health and safety.
(C) A permit for an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit constructed prior to January 1, 2020 shall not be denied solely due to building code violations unless the City makes a written finding that correction of the violation is necessary to comply with conditions that would otherwise deem the structure substandard.
19.39.120 State Law Preemption.
If any provision of this Chapter is found to be inconsistent with state accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit law, state law shall control. Failure to timely submit ordinance amendments to the California Department of Housing and Community Development shall result in the City applying only state standards, as required by law.
(Ord. No. 2024-04 Section 6; Ord. 2020-04 § 1, 2020.)
159
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
STAFF REPORT
CONSENT
ITEM NUMBER: 9.
TITLE
Open Gov Budgeting, Financial Reporting, and Transparency Platform Software Agreement
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolu-on to enter into an agreement with OpenGov for budge-ng and transparency software solution.
CONTACT
Jemelyn Cruz, Finance Director
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
The City has u-lized OpenGov's budge-ng and transparency so4ware for the past five years and the current contract is expiring in September. Prior to implemen-ng OpenGov, the Finance Department relied heavily on complex spreadsheets to develop budgets and perform financial analyses for City opera-ons. This approach limited accessibility and transparency, as staff and the public depended on the Finance Department to generate reports and provide updates regarding the City's financial status and operational performance.
The adop-on of OpenGov''s budge-ng and transparency solu-on has significantly enhanced transparency and accessibility for the public, City Council, and staff. Through OpenGov's transparency pla8orm, users have access to periodic external repor-ng and internal financial data.
The pla8orm also includes customizable management dashboards that support opera-onal analysis, funding assessments, strategic planning, and informed resource allocation decisions.
OpenGov's budge-ng module has improved efficiencies for both departmental users and Finance staff by streamlining budget development processes. The system allows for detailed line-item descrip-ons and suppor-ng informa-on that help iden-fy exis-ng contractual obliga-ons and document new funding requests. In addi-on, the pla8orm supports the development of Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs), integrates capital planning into the annual budget document, and facilitates mul--year financial forecas-ng. Overall, the implementa-on of OpenGov has reduced the staff -me required to prepare the budget document, managing workforce budge-ng, and maintain position control, resulting in a more efficient and transparent budgeting process. 160
COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Organizational Effectiveness: "Deliver exemplary government services."
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost to con-nue the OpenGov so4ware subscrip-on is $44,460.15 in FY 2026-27, $46,683.16 for FY 2027-28, and $49,017.31 for FY 2028-29. Sufficient funding is included in the FY 2026-27 Budget withing the Informa-on Technology Internal Service Fund (Fund 653). Funding for future annual subscription costs will be incorporated into subsequent budget cycles.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable.
COMMUNICATION
Level 0: No Further Public Communication Needed
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution OpenGov Budgeting
Exhibit A - OpenGov Three-Year Extension
Exhibit B - OpenGov Master Services Agreement
161
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON APPROVING A THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH OPENGOV, INC. FOR BUDGETING AND TRANSPARENCY SOFTWARE SERVICES AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City has utilized OpenGov Inc.’s budgeting and transparency software platform for the past five years to support budget development, financial reporting, operational analysis, and public transparency; and
WHEREAS, the OpenGov platform provides real-time financial reporting, budget development tools, capital improvement planning capabilities, and multi-year forecasting functionality that enhance operational efficiency, transparency and strategic planning; and WHEREAS, the budgeting and transparency platform has improved access to financial information for the public, City Council, and City staff while reducing the time required to prepare the annual budget, workforce budget, and position control processes; and
WHEREAS, the proposed agreement with OpenGov, Inc. will continue these software services for a three-year term at a cost of $44,460.15 in Fiscal Year 2026-27, $46,683.16 in Fiscal Year 2027-28, and $49,017.31 in Fiscal Year 2028-29, for a total agreement amount of $140,160.62; and WHEREAS, sufficient funding for Fiscal Year 2026-27 is included in the adopted budget of the Information Technology Internal Service Fund (Fund 653), and funding for subsequent years will be included in future budget appropriations; and
WHEREAS, the action authorized by this Resolution is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b), because it consists of organizational, administrative, and fiscal activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the three-year agreement with OpenGov, Inc. for budgeting and transparency software services in a total amount not to exceed $140,160.62.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement and any related documents necessary to implement the agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon held on the 15th day of September, 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
162
2 ____________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVE AS TO FORM:
____________________________ _____________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk Matthew T. Summers, City Attorney 163
OpenGov Inc.
660 3rd Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
United States
Order Form Number: Q-19135 Prepared By: Kate Courter
Created On: 08/07/2026 Email: [email protected]
Order Form Expiration: 09/07/2026 Contract Term: 36 Months Subscription Start Date: 09/08/2026
Subscription End Date: 09/07/2029
Customer Information:
Customer: City of American Canyon,
CA
Contact Name: Jemelyn Cruz
Bill To/Ship To: 4381 Broadway Street Email: [email protected] American Canyon,
California
Phone: 7076474365
94503
United States
Order Details:
Billing Frequency: Prepaid
Payment Terms: Net 30 Days
SOFTWARE SERVICES:
Product Name Start Date End Date Annual Fee
Budgeting & Planning 09/08/2026 09/07/2027 $37,284.28
Premium Support 09/08/2026 09/07/2027 $7,175.87
Budgeting & Planning 09/08/2027 09/07/2028 $39,148.50
Premium Support 09/08/2027 09/07/2028 $7,534.66
Budgeting & Planning 09/08/2028 09/07/2029 $41,105.91
Premium Support 09/08/2028 09/07/2029 $7,911.40
Customer Billing/Service Periods:
Period: Total:
164
09/08/2026 $44,460.15
09/08/2027 $46,683.16
09/08/2028 $49,017.31
Order Form Legal Terms:
This Order Form incorporates the OpenGov Master Services Agreement ("MSA") attached here or available at https://opengov.com/terms-of-service/master-services-agreement/. The "Agreement" between OpenGov and the entity identified above ("Customer") consists of the Order Form, MSA, and, if Professional Services are purchased, the Statement of Work. Unless otherwise specified above, fees for the Software Services and Professional Services shall be due and payable, in advance, 30 days from receipt of the invoice. By signing this Agreement, Customer acknowledges that it has been reviewed, and agrees to be legally bound by the Agreement. Each party’s acceptance of this Agreement is conditional upon the other’s acceptance of the Agreement to the exclusion of all other terms.
City of American Canyon, CA: OpenGov, Inc.
Signature:
____________________________
Signature:
____________________________
Name:
____________________________
Name:
____________________________
Title:
____________________________
Title:
____________________________
Date:
____________________________
Date:
____________________________
165
OpenGov Master Services Agreement
Last Modified: 5/5/2025
View Terms of Service
The parties to this Master Services Agreement (this “Agreement”) are OpenGov, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“OpenGov”), and the party procuring OpenGov’s products and services (“Customer”). Each Customer will execute an Order Form, which becomes binding when the parties sign it (the “EƯective Date”) and sets forth the terms and conditions under which OpenGov will provide its products and services to Customer.
1.Definitions
1.1. “Customer Data” means the data that is provided by Customer to OpenGov pursuant to this Agreement (for example, by email or through Customer’s software systems of record), including any data transmitted through the Software Services.
1.2. “Documentation” means any written, electronic, or online materials produced by OpenGov, and made available to Customer in connection with the Software Services, including user guides, training materials, FAQs, and technical support content, but excluding Product Documentation.
1.3. “Intellectual Property Rights” means all past, present, and future intellectual property rights including those associated with works of authorship, copyrights, moral rights, trademarks, trade names, trade secrets, patent rights, and any other proprietary rights in intellectual property of every kind and nature.
1.4. “Order Form” means the document(s) separately executed by the parties or attached as an exhibit, that specifies the Software Services and the Professional Services that OpenGov will provide to Customer. All such Order Form(s) are incorporated into this Agreement by reference.
1.5. “Product Documentation” means the technical specifications that describe the features, functionality, configuration, and intended operation of the Software Services 166
located at https://opengov.my.site.com/support/s/agreement-productdocumentation, which is incorporated into this Agreement by reference.
1.6. “Professional Services” means the implementation, configuration, training, consulting, or other professional services provided by OpenGov or its authorized partners, and identified in the applicable Statement of Work.
1.7. “Software Services” means the commercial-oƯ-the-shelf software products and services provided by OpenGov and identified in the applicable Order Form.
1.8. “Statement of Work” or “SOW” means the document(s) separately executed by the parties or attached as an exhibit to this Agreement or any applicable Order Form, that specifies the Professional Services that OpenGov will provide to Customer. All such SOW(s) are incorporated into this Agreement by reference.
2.Software Services and Professional Services
2.1. Software Services.
2.1.1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, OpenGov will use commercially reasonable eƯorts to provide the Software Services.
2.1.2. Support and Service Levels. Customer support is available by email to moc.vognepo@troppus or by using the chat messaging functionality of the Software Services. Customer may report issues any time; however, OpenGov will address issues during business hours. OpenGov will provide the applicable level of support in accordance with the Support and Software Service Levels located at https://opengov.com/service-sla, which is incorporated into this Agreement by reference.
2.2. Professional Services.
167
2.2.1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, OpenGov will use commercially reasonable eƯorts to provide the Professional Services, if applicable.
Unless otherwise specified in the SOW, any pre-paid Professional Services must be utilized within one year from the EƯective Date.
2.2.2. Travel Expenses for Professional Services. Travel expenses, if any, will be set forth in the applicable Order Form or SOW. Any additional travel expenses shall be subject to Customer’s prior written approval and will be reimbursable by Customer.
3.Restrictions and Responsibilities
3.1. Restrictions. Customer may not use the Software Services in any manner or for any purpose other than as expressly permitted by the Agreement. In addition, Customer shall not, and shall not knowingly or negligently, permit or enable any third party to: (a) use or access any of the Software Services to build a competitive product or service; (b) modify, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer or otherwise make any derivative use of the Software Services (except to the extent applicable laws specifically prohibit such restriction); (c) sell, license, rent, lease, assign, distribute, display, host, disclose, outsource, copy or otherwise commercially exploit the Software Services; (d) perform or disclose any benchmarking or performance testing of the Software Services, including but not limited to load testing or stress testing; (e) remove any proprietary notices included with the Software Services; (f) use the Software Services in violation of applicable law; or (g) transfer any personal, sensitive, or personally identifiable information to OpenGov in a manner that violates Customer’s obligations under the Data Processing Addendum.
3.2. Responsibilities. Customer shall be responsible for obtaining and maintaining computers, third-party software systems of record, and application programming interfaces needed to connect to, access, or otherwise use the Software Services.
Customer shall also be responsible for: (a) ensuring that such equipment is compatible with the Software Services, (b) maintaining the security of such equipment, user accounts, passwords and files, in accordance with industry standards, and (c) all uses of Customer user accounts by any party other than 168
OpenGov. OpenGov is not responsible for the operation, support, or security of any third-party software, systems, or services not provided by OpenGov.
3.3. Data Processing Addendum. To the extent OpenGov processes any Customer Data that contains personal information, personally identifiable information, or sensitive personal information on behalf of Customer in the course of providing the Software Services and Professional Services under this Agreement, the parties agree to comply with the terms of the Data Processing Addendum, located at https://opengov.com/terms-of-service/data-processing-addendum/, which is incorporated into this Agreement by reference.
4.Intellectual Property Rights; License Grants; Access to Customer Data
4.1. OpenGov’s Intellectual Property Rights. OpenGov exclusively owns and retains all right, title, and interest to the Software Services, Professional Services, Documentation, and Product Documentation, including all Intellectual Property Rights therein. This includes, without limitation, all underlying technology, software, user interfaces, visual design elements (such as the “look and feel”), custom fonts, graphics, workflows, button icons, and any derivative works (e.g., enhancements, modifications, or corrections), including but not limited to those that are created in connection with or through the use of the Software Services, Professional Services, Documentation, or Product Documentation. Customer may not reproduce, modify, distribute, or create derivative works based on any part of the Software Services, in whole or in part, without OpenGov’s prior written consent.
4.2. License Grant to Customer. OpenGov grants Customer a non-exclusive, nontransferable, non-sublicensable, royalty-free license to use the Software Services, Documentation, and Product Documentation during the Term for its internal use and the purpose as described in this Agreement. No additional rights or licenses shall be deemed granted.
4.3. Customer’s Intellectual Property Rights. Customer retains all right, title, and interest, including all Intellectual Property Rights, in and to Customer Data. Customer grants OpenGov and its authorized partners (such as cloud hosting providers) a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to access, use, store, edit, reformat and otherwise 169
process Customer Data for the purpose of providing, maintaining, developing, and improving OpenGov’s products and services.
4.4. Aggregated and Anonymized Data. Customer agrees that OpenGov and its authorized partners may use aggregated and anonymized data derived from Customer Data to provide, maintain, develop, and improve OpenGov’s products and services, to provide general customer service support and improvements, and to perform data and usage analytics. Any insights, developments, or improvements arising from such aggregated, anonymized data shall be owned by OpenGov.
4.5. Access to Customer Data. Customer may download Customer Data from the Software Services at any time during the Term, excluding during routine software maintenance periods. For a period of 30 days after expiration of the Term, Customer may request that OpenGov complete a one-time transfer of Customer Data in a format customarily used in the industry at OpenGov’s then-current hourly rate.
4.6. Deletion of Customer Data. Unless otherwise requested pursuant to this Section 4.6, upon the termination of this Agreement, Customer Data shall be deleted pursuant to OpenGov’s standard data deletion and retention practices, which is to delete Customer Data 45 days after termination or expiration of the Agreement. Upon written request, Customer may request deletion of Customer Data prior to the date of termination of this Agreement, in accordance with the notice requirements set forth in Section 10.2.
4.7. Feedback. “Feedback” means any suggestions, comments, ideas, recommendations, usage, or other input provided by Customer to OpenGov regarding the services.
Customer grants OpenGov a non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide license to use such Feedback in the Software Services, Professional Services, Documentation and Product Documentation. OpenGov will exclusively own all right, title, and interest, including all Intellectual Property Rights, in and to any improvements, modifications, or derivative works to the Software Services, Professional Services, Documentation or Product Documentation that are based on or derived from such Feedback.
5.Confidentiality
170
5.1. “Confidential Information” means all confidential business, technical, and financial information of the disclosing party that is marked as “Confidential” or an equivalent designation or that should reasonably be understood to be confidential given the nature of the information and/or the circumstances surrounding the disclosure.
OpenGov’s Confidential Information includes, without limitation, the software underlying the Software Services, Documentation, and Product Documentation.
5.2. Confidential Information does not include information that: (a) was publicly known or becomes publicly known through no breach of this Agreement by the receiving party; (b) is required to be disclosed upon request under any applicable federal, state, or local public records laws; (c) Customer expressly directs OpenGov make publicly available; (d) was lawfully known to the receiving party without restriction on disclosure before receipt from the disclosing party; (e) is disclosed to the receiving party by a third party who has the right to make such disclosure without restriction; or (f) is independently developed by the receiving party without access to the disclosing party’s Confidential Information.
5.3. Each party agrees to use the other’s Confidential Information only in connection with this Agreement. Each party further agrees to protect the other party’s Confidential Information using the measures that it employs with respect to its own Confidential Information of a similar nature, but in no event with less than reasonable care. If a party is required to disclose Confidential Information by law, subpoena, or court order, it must, to the extent legally permitted, promptly notify the other party in writing prior to the disclosure to give the other party an opportunity to oppose or limit the disclosure.
6.Term and Termination
6.1. Agreement Term. This Agreement begins on the EƯective Date and will remain in eƯect until the termination or expiration of all active Order Forms entered into under this Agreement (“Term”), unless earlier terminated pursuant to this Section 6.
6.2. 171
Renewal. Each Order Form shall automatically renew for additional terms equal in duration to its initial term (each, a “Renewal Term”), unless either party provides written notice of non-renewal at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the thencurrent term.
6.3. Termination for Cause. If either party materially breaches this Agreement and fails to cure such breach within 30 days after receiving written notice by the non-breaching party, the non-breaching party may terminate this Agreement.
6.4. Termination for Non-Appropriation. If required by applicable law, Customer may terminate this Agreement if it does not appropriate funds for a future fiscal year. In order to terminate for non-appropriation, Customer must provide at least 30 days’ prior written notice, provided it is after the first full year of the Agreement. Obligations to pay fees are non-cancelable, and payments are non-refundable. This section may not be used as a substitute for termination for convenience.
6.5. EƯect of Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 6: (a) Customer shall pay in full for all of the Software Services and Professional Services for the then-current annual term; (b) OpenGov shall stop providing the Software Services and the Professional Services to Customer; and (c) with the exception of Customer Data, the return and deletion of which are addressed in Section 4, each party shall, upon request of the other party, return or delete any of the other party’s Confidential Information.
7.Payment of Fees
7.1. Fees; Invoicing; Payment; Expenses.
7.1.1. Fees. Fees for the Software Services and Professional Services are set forth in the applicable Order Form, and OpenGov will invoice Customer accordingly. Customer agrees to pay invoices within 30 days of receipt. Invoices are deemed received when OpenGov emails them to Customer’s designated billing contact. Obligations to pay fees are non-cancelable, and payments are non-refundable, except as expressly provided in Sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.3.
172
7.1.2. Annual Software Price Adjustment. OpenGov shall increase the fees for the Software Services during any Renewal Term by 5% each year or as otherwise agreed upon in the applicable renewal Order Form.
7.1.3. Travel Expenses. OpenGov will invoice Customer for travel expenses provided in the SOW or Order Form as they are incurred. Customer shall pay all such valid invoices within 30 days of receipt of invoice. Receipts shall be provided for the travel expenses listed on the invoice.
7.2. Consequences of Non-Payment. If Customer fails to make any payments required under any Order Form or SOW, then in addition to any other rights OpenGov may have under this Agreement or applicable law: (a) Customer will owe a late interest penalty of the maximum rate permitted by law; and (b) if Customer’s account remains delinquent (with respect to payment of an undisputed invoice) for 10 days after receipt of a delinquency notice from OpenGov, which may be provided via email to Customer’s designated billing contact, OpenGov may temporarily suspend Customer’s access to the Software Service for up to 90 days to pursue good faith negotiations before pursuing termination in accordance with Section 6.3. Customer will continue to incur and owe all applicable fees irrespective of any such service suspension based on such Customer’s delinquency.
7.3. Taxes. Each party is responsible for the tax eƯects this Agreement imposes upon it. If Customer is tax-exempt, it will provide OpenGov its tax exemption certificate.
8.Representations and Warranties; Disclaimer
8.1. By OpenGov.
8.1.1. General Warranty. OpenGov represents and warrants that it has all right and authority necessary to enter into and perform this Agreement.
8.1.2. 173
Professional Services Warranty. OpenGov further represents and warrants that the Professional Services, if any, will be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with the related SOW and generally prevailing industry standards. For any breach of the Professional Services warranty, OpenGov will reperform the applicable services. If OpenGov is unable to re-perform such work as warranted, Customer will be entitled to recover all fees paid to OpenGov for the deficient work. Customer must give written notice of any claim under this warranty to OpenGov within 90 days of the completion of the Professional Services pursuant to the applicable SOW to receive such warranty remedies.
8.1.3. Software Services Warranty. OpenGov further represents and warrants that for the Term, the Software Services will perform in all material respects in accordance with the then-current Product Documentation. The foregoing warranty does not apply to (a) any Software Services that have been used in a manner other than as set forth in this Agreement, or (b) any pre-release features, functionality, or beta software services that Customer elects to use in the beta phase of development. For any breach of the Software Services warranty, OpenGov will repair or replace any nonconforming Software Services so that the aƯected portion of the Software Services operates as warranted. If OpenGov is unable to do so, Customer may terminate the Agreement and will be entitled to a refund of the pre-paid, unused portion of the fees from the date of the discovery of the defect. Customer must give written notice of any claim under this warranty to OpenGov within 90 days of Customer discovering the defect to receive such warranty remedies.
8.2. By Customer. Customer represents and warrants that (a) it has all right and authority necessary to enter into and perform this Agreement and (b) OpenGov’s use of Customer Data pursuant to this Agreement will not infringe, violate or misappropriate Intellectual Property Rights of any third party.
8.3. Disclaimer. OPENGOV DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SOFTWARE SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE; NOR DOES IT MAKE ANY WARRANTY AS TO THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM USE OF THE SOFTWARE SERVICES. EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 8, THE SOFTWARE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED “AS IS”
AND OPENGOV DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 174
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, TITLE, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.
9.Limitation of Liability
9.1. By Type. NEITHER PARTY, NOR ITS SUPPLIERS, OFFICERS, AFFILIATES,
REPRESENTATIVES, CONTRACTORS OR EMPLOYEES, SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE OR
LIABLE WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS AGREEMENT UNDER ANY CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, OR OTHER THEORY: (A) FOR ERROR OR
INTERRUPTION OF USE OR FOR LOSS OR INACCURACY OF DATA OR COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES OR LOSS OF BUSINESS; (B) FOR
ANY INDIRECT, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES; OR (C) FOR ANY MATTER BEYOND A PARTY’S REASONABLE CONTROL,
EVEN IF SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSS OR DAMAGE.
9.2. By Amount. IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY’S AGGREGATE, CUMULATIVE LIABILITY
FOR ANY CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT
EXCEED THE FEES PAID OR PAYABLE BY CUSTOMER TO OPENGOV FOR THE SOFTWARE SERVICES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IN THE 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE ACT THAT GAVE RISE TO THE LIABILITY.
9.3. Limitation of Liability Exclusions. The limitations of liability set forth in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 above do not apply to, and each party accepts liability to the other for: (a) claims arising out of fraud or willful misconduct by either party; (b) either party’s infringement of the other party’s Intellectual Property Rights; (c) breach of obligations under Section 3.1; and (d) payment obligations under this Agreement.
9.4. No Limitation of Liability by Law. Because some jurisdictions do not allow liability or damages to be limited to the extent set forth above, some of the above limitations may not apply.
10.Miscellaneous
10.1. 175
Logo Use. OpenGov shall have the right to use and display Customer’s logos and trade names for marketing and promotional purposes in OpenGov’s website and marketing materials, subject to Customer’s trademark usage guidelines provided to OpenGov.
10.2. Notice. Ordinary day-to-day operational communications may be conducted by email, live chat or telephone. For notices required by the Agreement the parties must communicate more formally in a writing sent via USPS certified mail and via email.
OpenGov’s addresses for notice are: moc.vognepo@lagel with a mailed copy to OpenGov, Inc., 660 3rd Street, Suite 100, San Francisco, CA 94107.
10.3. Anti-corruption. Neither OpenGov nor any of its employees or agents has oƯered or provided any illegal or improper payment, gift, or transfer of value in connection with this Agreement. The parties will promptly notify each other if they become aware of any violation of any applicable anti-corruption laws in connection with this Agreement.
10.4. Injunctive Relief. The parties acknowledge that any breach of the confidentiality provisions or the unauthorized use of a party’s intellectual property may result in serious and irreparable injury to the aggrieved party for which damages may not adequately compensate the aggrieved party. The parties agree, therefore, that, in addition to any other remedy that the aggrieved party may have, it shall be entitled to seek equitable injunctive relief without being required to post a bond or other surety or to prove either actual damages or that damages would be an inadequate remedy.
10.5. Force Majeure. Neither party will be liable for any delay or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement, due to any events beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to acts of god, acts of governmental authority, war, riot, labor disputes, failures of performance by any third-party services, utilities, or equipment failures, or any other events beyond the party’s reasonable control. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Customer shall remain obligated to perform its obligations under Section 7.1.1.
10.6. 176
Severability; Waiver. If any provision of this Agreement is found to be unenforceable or invalid, that provision will be limited or eliminated to the minimum extent necessary so that this Agreement will otherwise remain in full force and eƯect and enforceable.
Any express waiver or failure to exercise promptly any right under this Agreement will not create a continuing waiver or any expectation of non-enforcement.
10.7. Survival. The following sections of this Agreement shall survive termination or expiration: Section 5 (Confidentiality), Section 7 (Payment of Fees), Section 4.6 (Deletion of Customer Data), Section 8.3 (Warranty Disclaimer), Section 9 (Limitation of Liability), and Section 10 (Miscellaneous).
10.8. Assignment. There are no third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement. Neither party may assign, or otherwise transfer this Agreement without the other party’s written consent, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may assign, without such consent but upon written notice, its rights and obligations under this Agreement to its corporate aƯiliate or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all of its capital stock or its assets related to this Agreement, through purchase, merger, consolidation, or otherwise. Any other attempted assignment shall be void. This Agreement will benefit and bind permitted assigns and successors.
10.9. Independent Contractors. This Agreement does not create an agency, partnership, joint venture, or employment relationship, and neither party has any authority to bind the other.
10.10. Governing Law and Jurisdiction. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of Customer’s jurisdiction, without regard to conflict of laws principles. The parties submit to personal jurisdiction and venue in the courts of Customer’s jurisdiction.
10.11. Complete Agreement. OpenGov has made no other promises or representations to Customer other than those contained in this Agreement. Any additional or diƯerent terms in a purchase order or click-through agreement are expressly rejected by the parties and are void. Any modification to this Agreement must be in writing and signed 177
by an authorized representative of each party. No third parties are authorized to modify this Agreement. If there is a conflict between this Agreement and any other attached or incorporated document, the terms of this Agreement will control unless expressly stated otherwise.
AboutLeadershipNewsroomCareers
SupportAccessibilitySLADPA
Request a DemoSecurityTrustStore
© 2026 OpenGovPrivacy PolicyPublic Service is Personal
178
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
STAFF REPORT
CONSENT
ITEM NUMBER: 10.
TITLE
Approval of a Five-Year Agreement with Govinity, Inc. for Legisla.ve and Public Mee.ng Management Software Services.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolu.on approving a five-year agreement with Govinity, Inc. for legisla.ve and public mee.ng management so3ware services in an amount not to exceed $182,500 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.
CONTACT
Nicolle Hall, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
The city currently uses Granicus Peak Agenda Management for agenda prepara.on, publica.on, and public mee.ng func.ons. Staff has experienced ongoing opera.onal and customer support issues, including a so3ware outage during the September 3, 2026, Finance Subcommi<ee mee.ng when Granicus customer support was unavailable by phone. On another occasion, Granicus staff was unable to provide a solu.on to a technical issue, requiring city staff to develop code-assisted workarounds using AI tools. These recent examples are representa.ve of ongoing issues that led staff to evaluate alternative meeting management solutions.
Govinity combines the city's mee.ng management func.ons into four integrated modules. Tenure manages boards and commissions; Agenda supports staff report dra3ing, rou.ng, approvals, packet assembly, and public pos.ng; The Record provides streaming, cap.oning, transcrip.on, minutes, and a searchable public archive; and Live provides live clerk minutes, vo.ng, in-chamber display, and meeting-night controls. Microsoft 365 and single sign-on integration are also included.
For departmental staff, Microso3 365 integra.on will allow staff to prepare staff reports in Microso3 Word while remaining within the agenda workflow, providing a more familiar and efficient drafting process.
Accessibility is a key benefit of the Govinity plaCorm. The system meets WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards, which are guidelines designed to make websites and online informa.on accessible to people with disabili.es. Features include keyboard naviga.on, screen-reader support, accessible 179
agenda packets, live cap.ons, searchable transcripts, and mee.ng records linked to agenda items.
These features make City mee.ng informa.on easier for the public to access and help the city meet accessibility requirements. Govinity also provides transla.on tools to make mee.ng informa.on available in other languages.
Granicus sales and customer support staff have advised City staff that Granicus is no longer inves.ng staff .me or financial resources in upda.ng the version of Peak currently used by the City. To obtain updated func.onality, the city would need to transi.on to a more expensive Granicus product. Such an upgrade would require another so3ware transi.on and addi.onal cost, while not addressing the City's ongoing concerns regarding Granicus customer service and technical support.
Govinity provides meeting-focused customer support, including live in-app assistance during evening mee.ngs. The city will have a dedicated implementa.on and support team, role-based training, and an engineer on standby for the first live-broadcast Council mee.ng. This responsive support is particularly valuable when technical issues arise during live public meetings.
Implementa.on is scheduled to begin in October 2026, with full transi.on by July 1, 2027. Staff recommends Govinity based on its func.onality, accessibility, ease of use, customer support, and lower recurring cost.
COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Organizational Effectiveness: "Deliver exemplary government services."
FISCAL IMPACT
The Govinity annual subscrip.on is $35,000, compared with the City's current Granicus cost of $37,525, saving $2,525 annually. The five-year agreement totals $182,500, including $7,500 for implementation, migration, and training, for an estimated five-year savings of $5,125.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
None
COMMUNICATION
Level 0: No Further Public Communication Needed
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution - Govinity
Exhibit A - Govinity Proposal
Exhibit B - Govinity MSA
180
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON APPROVING A FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH GOVINITY, INC. FOR LEGISLATIVE AND
PUBLIC MEETING MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $182,500
WHEREAS, the City of American Canyon utilizes software solutions to support agenda management, public meetings, streaming, minutes, records management, and public access to legislative information; and
WHEREAS, Govinity, Inc. has proposed an integrated legislative and public meeting management platform providing agenda and workflow management, boards and commissions management, streaming, captioning, transcription, minutes, live meeting functions, and a searchable public archive; and
WHEREAS, Govinity has proposed a five-year arrangement consisting of an initial one-year term commencing January 1, 2027, with four annual renewal options, with implementation beginning in October 2026 and full cutover planned for July 1, 2027; and WHEREAS, the cost is $42,500 for Year 1, including $7,500 for implementation, migration, and training, and $35,000 annually for Years 2 through 5, for a total amount not to exceed $182,500 over five years; and
WHEREAS, funding for future years will be subject to the City's regular budget and appropriation process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of American Canyon hereby approves the five-year agreement with Govinity, Inc. for legislative and public meeting management software services and authorizes the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to implement the agreement, in a total amount not to exceed $182,500.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon held on the ____ day of __________, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Taresa Geilfuss, City Clerk
__________________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
City Attorney
APPENDICES:
Appendix A – Govinity Master Services Agreement
Appendix B – Govinity Proposal dated August 7, 2026
181
The Partner Public Service Deserves
PROPOSAL FOR
City of American Canyon, California
Legislative & Public Meeting Management Platform
Prepared for: City Clerk's Office, City of American Canyon Prepared by: Govinity, Inc.
Date: August 7, 2026
Valid Through: November 5, 2026
CONFIDENTIAL — This proposal contains pricing and proprietary information intended only for the named recipient. 182
Proposal for the City of American Canyon
Confidential Govinity, Inc. Page 2 of 12
A Note from the CEO
Friday, August 7, 2026
Nicolle Hall, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
Dear Nicole and Taresa,
Thank you for the opportunity to share Govinity with the City of American Canyon. We built Govinity for a specific kind of customer: agencies that take open meetings and open records seriously, and that want the operational workflows, their meeting agendas, their streaming media, their minutes, and an overall public record to feel like one connected workflow rather than disconnected tools held loosely together by private equity, unfulfilled contract promises, and poor support.
My team and I have spent our careers in government technology, with all of its ups… and downs. I previously served as CTO of Public Systems Associates (Louisiana Legislature), led product, operations, and sales at Granicus, and co-founded ProcureNow (now with OpenGov). The people building Govinity have written previous iterations of agenda management software, run the meeting nights, and answered the public records requests the morning after. We know where the friction is, and we built the platform we wished we'd had.
This proposal is tailored specifically to American Canyon. It reflects your current situation and your obligations under the Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, and accessibility requirements under Title II of the ADA. Pricing is a single annual SaaS license sized to your total annual budget, plus the modules you select… transparent and easy to budget against. The schedule follows your calendar:
kickoff October 1, 2026, first invoice January 1, 2027, full cutover July 1, 2027.
I would welcome the opportunity to walk through this proposal with you. You can reach me directly at the contact information below.
Respectfully,
Thao Hill
Co-Founder & CEO, Govinity, Inc.
[email protected] · 415-470-2428
183
Proposal for the City of American Canyon
Confidential Govinity, Inc. Page 3 of 12
Contents
A Note from the CEO..................................................................................................................................... 2 Contents........................................................................................................................................................ 3
1. Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Understanding American Canyon ............................................................................................................. 5
3. The Govinity Platform............................................................................................................................... 6
4. Proposed Modules.................................................................................................................................... 7
5. Implementation & Onboarding................................................................................................................. 9
6. Support.................................................................................................................................................... 10
7. Pricing...................................................................................................................................................... 11
8. Why Govinity........................................................................................................................................... 12 184
Proposal for the City of American Canyon
Confidential Govinity, Inc. Page 4 of 12
1. Executive Summary
Govinity is the modern, all-in-one platform for managing legislative and public meetings for public agencies. American Canyon currently runs a steady cadence of public meetings, each governed by the Brown Act, broadcast to the community on Napa Valley TV 28, and producing public records the City Clerk must preserve and make accessible.
Govinity replaces the patchwork of tools, templates, and manual handoffs that most agencies still rely on. From the moment a staff report is drafted to the moment a vote is recorded and the minutes are published, everything happens in one connected workflow.
What American Canyon gets with Govinity:
• One workflow, end-to-end. Agenda creation, packet assembly, the live meeting, voting, minutes, and the public-facing record — all in a single platform. • Accessible by default. Title II ADA compliance, live and recorded transcriptions, screen-readerfriendly public agendas, and a searchable archive. • Designed for clerks, and both your internal and public customers. Templates, automations, and one-click publishing built for cities of all sizes.
• Transparent SaaS pricing. A single annual license sized to your total budget, plus only the modules you choose. No per-user surprises, no professional services traps.
The total proposed investment for American Canyon, covering all four Govinity modules, is detailed in Section 7. Implementation begins October 1, 2026, and completes with a 100% cutover to Govinity by July 1, 2027.
185
Proposal for the City of American Canyon
Confidential Govinity, Inc. Page 5 of 12
2. Understanding American Canyon
American Canyon is a community of more than 21,000 residents at the southern gateway to the Napa Valley, incorporated in 1992. Its public meeting program is more active than most cities of its size.
Public access channels
Meetings are broadcast live on Napa Valley TV Channel 28, streamed on the City's YouTube channel, and re-broadcast on Channel 28 the following Tuesday and Wednesday. Agenda packets are posted by 5:00 PM the Friday before each Council meeting.
Regulatory obligations Govinity addresses directly
• Ralph M. Brown Act. Posting timing, agenda specificity, closed session reporting, and public participation rules are enforced by the platform workflow. • California Public Records Act (CPRA). All agendas, packets, minutes, video, and supporting documents are preserved in a searchable public archive with structured retention. • ADA Title II (and the 2024 DOJ web accessibility rule). WCAG 2.1 AA-conformant public site, machine-readable agendas, live captioning, and screen-reader-friendly archives. • California AB 2449 and SB 411 (hybrid / remote participation). Native support for hybrid workflows where the body chooses to use them.
186
Proposal for the City of American Canyon
Confidential Govinity, Inc. Page 6 of 12
3. The Govinity Platform
Govinity is delivered as a multi-tenant, cloud-hosted SaaS platform. Every agency gets the same core platform; modules are turned on à la carte based on need.
Architecture at a glance
• Cloud-native. Hosted on AWS in U.S. regions, with encryption in transit (TLS 1.2+) and at rest (AES-256).
• Single sign-on. SAML 2.0 / OIDC integration with your identity provider (Microsoft Entra ID / Google Workspace).
• Open by design. REST APIs and webhooks for integrations with the City website, agenda data feeds, document management systems (i.e. Laserfiche, etc), and broadcast systems. • Accessible by default. WCAG 2.1 AA throughout the staff and public experience • Mobile-ready. Members of the body can review packets, annotate, and vote from any device if that’s part of the city’s needs.
How a typical meeting moves through Govinity
Staff drafts an item → routes for review and legal sign-off → the City Clerk publishes the agenda and packet → members of the body annotate privately → the Chair runs the live meeting through Govinity → motions and votes are recorded as they happen → minutes are auto-drafted from the live record → the Clerk finalizes and publishes → the archive, video, and roll-call record are public and searchable post adjournment.
The Operating System for Public Meetings.
From the moment a department submits a report through final council action, mayor transmittal, and public archival - everything flows through one platform with one data model. 187
Proposal for the City of American Canyon
Confidential Govinity, Inc. Page 7 of 12
4. Proposed Modules
Govinity is delivered as four integrated modules, all included in this proposal for the City of American Canyon. Integrations to Microsoft 365, single sign-on, and other systems can be added as add-ons, scoped during contracting.
Module What it does
Tenure
Boards & commissions management. Multi-body support across the City Council, Fire District Board, Planning Commission, Parks & Community Services Commission, and Open Space Advisory Committee — including rosters, terms, appointments, recruitment, and member onboarding.
Agenda Item drafting, staff report templates, routing and approvals, packet assembly, and automated public posting timed to Brown Act requirements.
The Record Live streaming, captioning, transcription, and minutes. An indexed, WCAG 2.1 AAconformant public archive linked to agenda items and votes.
Live
Live Clerk Minutes, Live Voting, and Live In-Chamber Display. Meeting-night control for the Clerk and the body, with offline-capable, LAN-resilient operation in the Council Chambers.
188
Proposal for the City of American Canyon
Confidential Govinity, Inc. Page 8 of 12
Add-ons. Microsoft 365 and single sign-on (SSO) integrations are included in this proposal as separate line items in Section 7. Additional integrations (other identity providers, codifiers, document management systems such as Laserfiche, agenda data feeds, etc.) are available and can be scoped during contracting if elected. 189
Proposal for the City of American Canyon
Confidential Govinity, Inc. Page 9 of 12
5. Implementation & Onboarding
This implementation is scheduled against American Canyon’s calendar: contract execution no later than September 15, 2026, project kickoff on October 1, 2026, and a 100% cutover to Govinity on July 1, 2027.
The phases below reflect that schedule and will be confirmed in a mutually agreed Statement of Work.
Phase Timeline Key activities
1. Kickoff &
Discovery Oct 2026
Project kickoff October 1, 2026. Stakeholder interviews (Clerk, IT, City Attorney), configuration workbook, identity provider integration plan.
2. Configuration Oct–Dec 2026
Set up bodies, templates, workflows, retention rules; SSO integration; brand and public site theming; codifier and website integration scoping.
3. Data Migration Dec 2026–Feb
2027
Migration of agendas, minutes, and video archive from CivicWeb / current systems into Govinity (scope confirmed in discovery).
4. Training Feb–Mar 2027
Role-based training: City Clerk team, department liaisons, body members, IT administrators. Recordings retained for ongoing onboarding.
5. Parallel Run &
Phased Go-Live Apr–Jun 2027
Govinity runs in parallel with current systems, body by body, beginning with the City Council. Govinity engineer on standby for the first live broadcast Council meeting.
6. Full Cutover July 1, 2027 100% of Council, board, and commission meetings run on Govinity.
Legacy systems retired and the public archive fully transitioned.
7. Hypercare Jul–Sep 2027 Daily check-ins for the first 30 days post-cutover, weekly thereafter through the remainder of the quarter.
Roles and responsibilities
• Govinity Implementation Lead. Single point of accountability throughout onboarding, hypercare, and the first annual renewal.
• Govinity Solutions Engineer. Configures the platform, executes data migration, and integrates SSO, broadcast, codifier, and website.
• Govinity Customer Success Manager. Long-term partner responsible for ongoing adoption, quarterly business reviews, and roadmap input.
• American Canyon Project Sponsor (recommended: City Clerk). Decision-making authority for configuration, training schedule, and go-live approval. 190
Proposal for the City of American Canyon
Confidential Govinity, Inc. Page 10 of 12
6. Support
Govinity provides in-app chat support to every named user. Average response time is within 5 minutes during business hours, and most issues are resolved the same day.
Detailed uptime, security, and service-level commitments are addressed in the Master Subscription Agreement.
191
Proposal for the City of American Canyon
Confidential Govinity, Inc. Page 11 of 12
7. Pricing
Pricing for the City of American Canyon is one-time professional services & setup plus annual SaaS license & support for the four Govinity modules and the selected integrations. No per-user fees, no permeeting fees, no separate fees for additional bodies, commissions, or committees.
Line Item Year 1 Investment
Professional Services & Setup (one-time — implementation, migration & training) $7,500
Tenure — Boards & Commissions Management
$35,000
Agenda — Agenda & Workflow Management
The Record — Streaming, Captioning, Transcription & Minutes Live — Live Clerk Minutes, Live Voting, Live In-Chamber Display Microsoft 365 Integration
Single Sign-On (SSO) Integration
YEAR 1 TOTAL $42,500
Year 2 through Year 5 — annual recurring $35,000
Term. Five (5) years total: an initial one-year term commencing January 1, 2027, with four (4) annual options to renew. Implementation begins at kickoff on October 1, 2026; the October–December 2026 onboarding period carries no subscription charge.
Add-ons. Microsoft 365 and single sign-on (SSO) integrations are included as line items above.
Additional integrations (other identity providers, codifiers, document management systems such as Laserfiche, agenda data feeds, and others) are available and will be scoped and priced during contracting if elected; they are not included in this proposal.
Payment terms. No invoice will be issued before January 1, 2027. Professional services and the Year 1 annual SaaS fee are invoiced on January 1, 2027, Net 30. Each subsequent annual SaaS fee is billed in advance on January 1. ACH preferred. Remaining commercial and legal terms are addressed in Govinity’s Master Subscription Agreement.
192
Proposal for the City of American Canyon
Confidential Govinity, Inc. Page 12 of 12
8. Why Govinity
Leadership built specifically for this market
Govinity is led by a team that has spent the last two decades inside the legislative and govtech space — not adjacent to it.
• Former CTO of Public Systems (Louisiana Legislature, Kansas City, MO). • Former Head of Product, Operations, and Sales at Granicus. • Co-founders of ProcureNow, the government procurement suite acquired by OpenGov. • Former VP of Product Management for OpenGov's Procurement and Contract Management Suite.
• Current advisory roles with Sovra and Procurated.
Built for clerks, not configured for clerks
Most meeting management tools are general-purpose document and workflow platforms with a clerk skin on top. Govinity was designed from the first line of code around the way a City Clerk's office actually works — Brown Act timing, the agenda packet as a first-class object, action minutes as the default, and the public record as the output of the workflow rather than a manual export.
Modern, accessible, and open
The 2024 DOJ rule under Title II of the ADA raises the bar for every public agency's website and digital meeting record. Govinity is built to WCAG 2.1 AA conformance throughout — the public-facing archive, the live meeting view, captions, and the staff experience.
Aligned incentives
Govinity is a privately held, growth-stage company focused exclusively on this category. We look forward to becoming the preferred public meetings solutions vendor for The City of American Canyon! 193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
STAFF REPORT
BUSINESS
ITEM NUMBER: 11.
TITLE
Water Treatment Plant Filter Media Replacement and Underdrain Repair Project (WA23-0200)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolu.on: 1) Amending the FY2026-27 Capital Budget and increasing the WA23-0200 project budget from $350,000 to $600,000; 2) awarding a Construc.on Agreement to ERS Industrial, Inc. in the amount of $492,800; and 3) authorizing the City Manager to approve and execute contract change orders in an amount not to exceed the $600,000 project budget, in conjunc.on with the Water Treatment Plant Filter Media Replacement and Underdrain Repair Project (WA23- 0200).
CONTACT
Erica Ahmann Smithies, P.E., Public Works Director
Norman Woods, Assistant Public Works Director
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
The City of American Canyon owns and operates the Water Treatment Plant (WTP), which provides treated water to meet the City's potable water demands. As part of the City's ongoing Capital Improvement Program, the City iden.fied the need to replace the exis.ng filter media and repair por.ons of the filter underdrain system to maintain the reliability and opera.onal performance of the WTP.
The need to complete this work has also been iden.fied through federal regulatory oversight.
Following its November 6–7, 2025 inspec.on, the U.S. Environmental Protec.on Agency (EPA), Region 9, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division included the Water Treatment Plant Filter Media Replacement Project as a mandatory correc.ve ac.on in its Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Inspec.on Report. Comple.on of the filter media replacement is therefore necessary to address aging infrastructure, maintain treatment performance and reliability, and sa.sfy the mandatory corrective action identified by EPA.
The WA23-0200 – Water Treatment Plant Filter Media Replacement and Underdrain Repair Project with ini.al es.mates, held an ini.al budget of $350,000. This amount was a planning-level budget based on a vendor quote and project criteria known at the .me. Since the project was established, the scope and requirements have been further developed, including the correc.ve ac.on iden.fied 205
by EPA, and the City conducted a compe..ve bidding process to establish current market pricing for the work.
The city received two bids, one from NMI Industrial and ERS Industrial, Inc. Staff reviewed the bids for responsiveness and compliance with the project requirements and determined that ERS Industrial, Inc. is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
The ERS Industrial bid is $142,800 above the exis.ng $350,000 project budget. However, the original budget was developed for planning purposes based on a vendor quote and the project informa.on available at that .me. The compe..ve bid therefore provides a more current and defined basis for establishing the construction budget.
The City received two bids, which are summarized below:
Bidder Bid Amount
ERS Industrial, Inc. $492,800.00
NMI Industrial $1,286,153.37
Because the project involves repair of exis.ng water treatment infrastructure, staff recommends an approximate 20% construc.on con.ngency to address unforeseen field condi.ons and poten.al changes that may be iden.fied once the exis.ng filter media is removed and the underdrain system is exposed. The recommended increase to cover con.ngency and salary expenses is $107,200, resulting in a total project authorization of $600,000.
The proposed project budget will need to be increased by $250,000 to accommodate the increase in the project amount and the proposed contingency.
COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Infrastructure: "Develop and maintain infrastructure resources to support sustainable growth."
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the recommended ac.on would increase the budget for CIP Project No. WA23-0200 – Water Treatment Plant Filter Media Replacement and Underdrain Repair Project by $250,000 with a not to exceed amount of $600,000.
The addi.onal appropria.on of $250,000 will be funded by Fund 510, Water Opera.ons. Prior to this increase, Fund 510 has an unassigned fund balance of approximately $6 million.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ac.on is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sec.on 15301, Class 1 (Exis.ng Facili.es), which applies to the repair, 206
maintenance, and minor altera.on of exis.ng public facili.es and mechanical equipment involving negligible or no expansion of exis.ng use. The project consists of replacing filter media and repairing the exis.ng underdrain system at the City's exis.ng Water Treatment Plant and does not expand the existing use of the facility. Therefore, the project will have no significant environmental impact.
COMMUNICATION
Level 0: No Further Public Communication Needed
No communication plan needed as this is an internal operation at the water treatment plant.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution - Water Treatment Plant
2. ERS Industrial Cost Proposal
3. ERS Industrial Technical Proposal
4. ERS Industrial Intro
207
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 1) AMENDING THE FY2026-27 CAPITAL BUDGET AND INCREASING THE WA23-0200 PROJECT BUDGET FROM $350,000 TO $600,000; 2) AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT TO ERS INDUSTRIAL, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $492,800; AND 3) AUTHORIZING
THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THE $600,000 PROJECT BUDGET, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT FILTER MEDIA REPLACEMENT AND
UNDERDRAIN REPAIR PROJECT (WA23-0200)
WHEREAS, the City of American Canyon identified the need to replace the existing filter media and repair portions of the underdrain system at the City’s Water Treatment Plant to maintain treatment reliability and performance; and
WHEREAS, following its November 6–7, 2025 inspection, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, identified the Water Treatment Plant Filter Media Replacement Project as a mandatory corrective action in its Safe Drinking Water Act Inspection Report; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a competitive bidding process for CIP Project No. WA23-0200 – Water Treatment Plant Filter Media Replacement and Underdrain Repair Project and received two bids; and
WHEREAS, staff determined that ERS Industrial, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid in the amount of $492,800; and
WHEREAS, staff recommend a construction contingency of $107,200, resulting in a total project authorization not to exceed $600,000; and
WHEREAS, the existing project budget of $350,000 requires an additional appropriation of $250,000 from Fund 510, Water Operations, to establish a total project budget of $600,000; and
WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities, because the work consists of repair and rehabilitation of existing Water Treatment Plant infrastructure with no expansion of existing use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon hereby:
1. Awards the WA23-0200 – Water Treatment Plant Filter Media Replacement and Underdrain Repair Project agreement to ERS Industrial, Inc. in the amount of $492,800; 208
2. Authorizes a construction contingency of $107,200, for a total project authorization not to exceed $600,000;
3. Increases the budget for CIP Project No. WA23-0200 from $350,000 to $600,000 and appropriates an additional $250,000 from Fund 510, Water Operations;
4. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute the agreement and related documents, including approved change orders, within the total authorized project amount; and
5. Finds that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon held on the ___ day of ________, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Matthew T. Summers, City Attorney
ATTEST:
____________________________
Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk
____________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
209
Class A, C33 CSLB License #724233 Registered DIR Public Works Contractor #1000003275 2120 WARM SPRINGS COURT FREMONT, CALIFORNIA 94539 | P: 510.770.0202 | E: [email protected] 5 Cost Proposal
July 29, 2026
Noni Thomas
American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street
American Canyon, CA 94503
QUOTE #: BID
PHONE #: 707 980-2445
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
Dear Noni:
ERS is pleased to submit its proposal for our turnkey service per the Technical proposal provided in this RFP. Quote is based on Prevailing wage rates and DIR requirements where applicable.
Scope of Supply:
• Perform work described in the attached technical proposal for the RFP WA-23-0200 Water Treatment Plant Filter Media Replacement & Underdrain Repair.
ERS Industrial Services Acknowledges (2) Addendums
• Any extra work/repairs outside of scope will be tracked on Time and Material Price includes required bonding.
Price does not include any valves, instruments, or controls.
Disposal testing and transport to be executed in compliance with RCRA Subtitles C & D.
ERS is also willing the work with district to add or eliminate items associated with this quote. 210
Class A, C33 CSLB License #724233 Registered DIR Public Works Contractor #1000003275 2120 WARM SPRINGS COURT FREMONT, CALIFORNIA 94539 | P: 510.770.0202 | E: [email protected] 6 PRICING: $492,800.00
RFP Valid for 90 days.
Our time and materials work are billed at $246.00 per man-hour, straight time, plus materials with a 25% margin. Price includes all applicable sales tax.
Please feel free to contact me should you need further information or any clarification. My contact information is: phone – cell (510) 552-3285; office (510) 770-0202; email – [email protected] If quote is accepted, please answer questions below, sign and return to [email protected] Sincerely,
Nikolas Radonich
ERS Industrial Services Inc.
Principal / CFO
211
Class A, C33 CSLB License #724233 Registered DIR Public Works Contractor #1000003275 2120 WARM SPRINGS COURT FREMONT, CALIFORNIA 94539 | P: 510.770.0202 | E: [email protected] 2 Qualifications and Experience
ERS Industrial has been in the business of rehabilitation filters and water treatment systems for 30 years.
With a Class A and C-33 License we can provide a Turnkey solution for rehabilitation of water treatment filter and systems. ERS has specialized tools, trained personnel, and years of knowledge in rehabilitation of water filters. Services include:
• Providing full inspection reports, testing of filter media and written reports of filter conditions. • Removing, Testing and disposal at approved landfills of removed filter media. • Supplying and installing AWWA approved filter media.
• Preparing and coating of Steel and concrete.
• In House fabrication of underdrain components, laterals and surface wash components. • Air Scour grid design fabrication and installation.
• Fixed grid surface wash design, fabrication, and installation.
1. Insurance
a. Pollution Liability $3,000,000.00
b. Professional Liability $3,000,000.00
2. Qualified manpower:
a. Onsite Supervisor/Environmental Technician/Hole Watch. b. Certifications in Forklift/Reach Lift, Crane Operator, Confined Space & Rescue, and First Aid/CPR/AED.
3. Equipment and PPE:
a. High-power industrial vacuum system.
b. Ventilation fan for air circulation.
c. Four gas monitors for pre-entry and continuous LEL testing. d. Air-purifying respirators (supplied air respirators available if required).
4. Safety Regulations:
a. Confined Space:
i. Tripod/winch for emergency evacuation.
ii. Fall arrest harnesses with safety lanyards for all men. iii. Permit-required confined space entry permits as applicable. iv. Daily monitoring log.
b. 2-Way radios for communication with in-tank personnel. c. Cellular phone as an emergency response tool.
ERS Personnel is trained and specialized for complex work associated in active Water treatment facility’s
ERS has worked with multiple municipal water districts throughout California. ERS has also provided services for American Canyon Water district including media replacement of the filters outlined in this RFP back in 2001 & 2013.
For Reference, ERS Industrial Services has recently completed the following projects. 212
Class A, C33 CSLB License #724233 Registered DIR Public Works Contractor #1000003275 2120 WARM SPRINGS COURT FREMONT, CALIFORNIA 94539 | P: 510.770.0202 | E: [email protected] 3 City Of San Diego Alvarado Water Treatment Facility. 2024-2026 $5,096,088.00
Media change out and underdrain repairs on (8) 194SQFT gravity filters.
Contact Gregory Cross
619-527-7460
City of Long Beach Water Treatment Facility. 2025-2026
$4,011,659.00
Media Removal, Cleaning, Concrete Coating / Repair and Underdrain Rehabilitation on (18) 480SQFT gravity filters.
Contact My Vu
562-570-2483
LA County Sanitary District Valencia WWTP 2025
$3,587,803.00
Media change out, Fabricate new underdrains and surface wash system and complete preparation and coatings of 14 240 SQFT Pressure Filters
Contact Alice Kuo
562-908-4288
Monterey Bay Aquarium Sand Filters
$173,930.00
Rehabilitate 8 Pressure filters located at Monterey Bay Aquarium Contact Brian Maurer
831-644-7516
South Tahoe Utility’s District
$1,261,870.00
Media Change out, fabricate new underdrain laterals, surface wash piping, nozzles and arms, install 14 AWWA butterfly valves and complete preparation and coating of interior and exterior of (2) 380 SQFT Pressure vessels.
Contact Megan Colvey
530-543-6266
ERS Industrial Services Inc. is in good standing with no legal or finical issues of any kind.
ERS has reviewed the Scope of work, Visited the site during the mandatory walk through, and reviewed past inspections we have performed on the filters and are prepared to perform the requested services. 213
Class A, C33 CSLB License #724233 Registered DIR Public Works Contractor #1000003275 2120 WARM SPRINGS COURT FREMONT, CALIFORNIA 94539 | P: 510.770.0202 | E: [email protected] 4 Scope based on 2 filters at a time.
Below is a general progression of the work. All materials will be fabricated and supplied per the table in Section 3.3 Equipment and supplies.
1. Prepare all drawings and submittal documents for project
2. Remove filter media, Test and Dispose at an approved landfill.
3. Remove underdrain laterals, underdrain header, Surface wash piping and arms
4. Inspect condition of concrete and piping stubs through wall, provide written reports of findings. (If Coatings need repair or complete replacement, we can provide a separate Quote)
5. Fabricate and install new Underdrain Header in filters per OEM Drawings
6. Fabricate and install new surface wash piping and surface wash arms per OEM Drawings
7. Fabricate and install new PVC Laterals per OEM Drawings
8. Supply and install new filter Gravel, Garnet Sand, Silica Sand and Anthracite * per the original design, the fiberglass trough will need to be removed to facilitate installation of the 18” underdrain header. Our experience that this is extremely difficult to do without damage due to the way they are installed and age of fiberglass. Our proposal is to fabricate the header in multiple size pieces and weld and touch up coatings in the filter basin. ERS is C-33 licensed for painting and prep and have performed this install on other projects. ERS will also inspect the surface wash and underdrain header spool that goes through the concrete wall for integrity. If the spool needs to be repaired or replaced a separate change order request will be provided.
** ERS will be providing the media based on the bed design from the change outs we performed in 2001 & 2013. The bed design is as follows and standard for Neptune Microfloc filter design. 10 Silica Gravel 1 1/2" x 3/4"
3 Silica Gravel 3/4" x 3/8"
3 Silica Gravel 3/8" x 3/16"
3 Silica Gravel 3/16" x #10
3 Garnet Sand #50
10 Silica Sand .45-.55 < 1.5 uc
19 Anthracite Dry 1.0 - 1.1 < 1.5 uc
Nikolas R Radonich
Principal/Chief Financial Officer
ERS Industrial Services, Inc.
2120 Warm Springs Court
Fremont, CA. 94539
Office Phone: 510-770-0202
Office Fax: 510-490-3024
Cell Phone: 510-552-3285
Email: [email protected]
214
Class A, C33 CSLB License #724233 Registered DIR Public Works Contractor #1000003275 2120 WARM SPRINGS COURT FREMONT, CALIFORNIA 94539 | P: 510.770.0202 | E: [email protected] 1 07/24/2026
American Canyon Water Treatment Plant Filter Media Replacement & Underdrain Repair Transmittal Letter
Proposal By;
Nikolas R Radonich
Priciple / Chief Financial Officer
ERS Industrial Services, Inc.
2120 Warm Springs Court
Fremont, CA. 94539
Office Phone: 510-770-0202
Office Fax: 510-490-3024
Cell Phone: 510-552-3285
Email: [email protected]
Statement of Offer;
ERS industrial Services ,Inc. is offering to complete the scope of work outlined in section 3 of the RFP WA23-0200. Quote is valid for 90 business days after proposal due date.
Conflict of Interest;
ERS Industrial Services Inc, or any of its personnel, do not have conflict of interest associated with the district or the work.
City Contract Terms;
ERS Industrial Services Inc, acknowledges the city’s contract terms associated with this RFP.
Subcontractors;
No Subcontractors used in this project.
Nikolas Radonich
Principle / CFO
215
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
STAFF REPORT
BUSINESS
ITEM NUMBER: 12.
TITLE
Melvin Road Pavement and Sewer Improvements
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolu)on amending the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Budget from $115,000 to $175,000 for the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilita)on Project (TR27-0100) and authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Coastland | DCCM for an amount not to exceed $194,446 for design services for the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilita)on Project (TR27-0100) and Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project (WW27-0400).
CONTACT
Erica Ahmann Smithies, P.E., Public Works Director
Ron Ranada, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
The City of American Canyon received one-)me federal funding in the amount of $1,333,000 for the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilita)on Project (TR27-0100) to rehabilitate approximately 3,225 linear feet of roadway along Melvin Road, Wilson Way, Poco Way, and James Road.
The proposed project will rehabilitate deteriorated pavement using a combina)on of grind-andoverlay, full-depth asphalt concrete paving, and pavement stabiliza)on treatments, as appropriate based on exis)ng pavement condi)ons. The project will also include new pavement striping and signage, including parking delineation, centerlines, and bicycle facilities.
In conjunc)on with the planned pavement rehabilita)on, the City has iden)fied a need to rehabilitate exis)ng sewer mains along Melvin Road and Wilson Way as part of the Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project (WW27-0400). Because the sewer improvements require work within the roadway, they must be completed before the pavement rehabilita)on to avoid disturbing newly constructed pavement. Coordina)ng the design of the two Capital Improvement Program projects will allow the City to appropriately sequence the sewer improvements ahead of the paving work and minimize conflicts, duplication of effort, and future impacts to the roadway.
Construc)on of the Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project is an)cipated to be coordinated with other planned sewer improvements in the area, including the SS4 and Andrew Road Sewer projects. 216
This approach will allow the City to coordinate construc)on ac)vi)es while ensuring the necessary sewer improvements within the Melvin Road corridor are completed prior to pavement rehabilitation.
City staff requested a proposal from Coastland | DCCM (Coastland), a firm included on the City Council-approved 2023 on-call professional services consultant list, to provide design and engineering services for both projects. Coastland was selected for this assignment based on its familiarity with the project area and prior work for the City, including prepara)on of the plans for the recently completed Melvin Road Sidewalk and Storm Drain Project. This prior experience provides con)nuity between the projects and allows the consultant to build upon exis)ng survey, design, and field information already developed for the corridor.
COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Infrastructure: "Develop and maintain infrastructure resources to support sustainable growth."
FISCAL IMPACT
Coastland proposes to complete the design and engineering services for both projects on a )meand-materials basis for a total amount not to exceed $194,446. Of this amount, $153,136 is aFributable to the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilita)on Project (TR27-0100) and $41,310 is attributable to the Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project (WW27-0400).
The es)mated total project budget for the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilita)on Project is $1,788,750; however, only $115,000 was allocated in the Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget for design. An addi)onal $60,000 is requested from Measure U Fund 211, increasing the available design budget to $175,000. The addi)onal funding will provide sufficient budget for the consultant design services and associated City staff costs.
The Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget includes $100,000 for design of the Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project, which is sufficient to fund the $41,310 consultant design cost and associated City staff costs.
No additional appropriation is required for WW27-0400 at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilita)on (TR27-0100) and Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project (WW27-0400) are categorically exempt from CEQA per Section 15301c, Existing Facilities.
COMMUNICATION
Level 1: Minimal Communication
This is for design services only at this )me and public outreach will be minimal un)l the construc)on phase.
ATTACHMENTS:
217
1. Resolution - Melvin Road Award
2. Project Map
218
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 CAPITAL BUDGET FROM $115,000 TO $175,000 FOR THE MELVIN ROAD PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT (TR27-0100) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH COASTLAND | DCCM FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $194,446 FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE MELVIN ROAD PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT (TR27-0100) AND MELVIN/WILSON WAY MAIN REPAIR PROJECT (WW27-0400) WHEREAS, the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project (TR27-0100) will rehabilitate pavement and provide associated roadway improvements along Melvin Road, Wilson Way, Poco Way, and James Road; and
WHEREAS, the City has also identified a need to rehabilitate existing sewer mains along Melvin Road and Wilson Way as part of the Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project (WW27-0400); and WHEREAS, the sewer improvements must be completed prior to pavement rehabilitation to avoid disturbing newly rehabilitated pavement, and coordinating the design of the two projects will allow the City to appropriately sequence the improvements and minimize conflicts and duplication of effort; and WHEREAS, construction of the Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project is anticipated to be coordinated with other planned sewer improvements in the area, including the SS4 and Andrew Road Sewer projects; and
WHEREAS, Coastland | DCCM (Coastland) is included on the City Council-approved 2023 on-call professional services consultant list and previously prepared the plans for the Melvin Road Sidewalk and Storm Drain Project, providing familiarity with the project area and continuity with recently completed improvements; and
WHEREAS, City staff requested a proposal from Coastland to provide professional engineering and design services for the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project (TR27-0100) and Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project (WW27-0400); and
WHEREAS, Coastland submitted a proposal to provide professional engineering and design services for both projects for an amount not to exceed $194,446, of which $153,136 is attributable to the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project and $41,310 is attributable to the Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project; and
WHEREAS, the adopted Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Budget includes $115,000 for design of the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project, and an additional appropriation of $60,000 from Measure U Fund 211 is necessary to increase the available design budget to $175,000 to provide sufficient funding for consultant design services and associated project costs; and WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds in Measure U Fund 211 to accommodate the $60,000 budget increase to the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project (TR27-0100); and 219
2 WHEREAS, the adopted Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Budget includes $100,000 for design of the Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project, which is sufficient to fund the proposed consultant design services and associated project costs; and
WHEREAS, the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilitation (TR27-0100) and Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project (WW27-0400) are categorically exempt from CEQA per Section 15301c, Existing Facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon hereby amends the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Budget from $115,000 to $175,000 for the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project (TR27-0100) and authorizes the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Coastland | DCCM for an amount not to exceed $194,446 for design services for the Melvin Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project (TR27-0100) and Melvin/Wilson Way Main Repair Project (WW27-0400).
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon held on the 15th day of September, 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVE AS TO FORM:
____________________________ _____________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk Matthew T. Summers, City Attorney 220
Donaldson W
Broadway
Broadway
Donaldson Way
Broadway
Driveway
Drivewa
Andrew Rd
Wilson Way
Donaldson Way Donaldson Way
Carolyn Dr
Wilson Way
Carolyn Dr
Donaldson Way
James Rd
Donaldson Way
Amarillo Dr
Sierra Vista
Roja Ln Roja Ln
Roja Ln
Broadway
S Napa Junction Rd
Broadway
Antonina Ave
Melvin Rd
Roja Ln
Poco Way
Melvin Rd
Rio Del Mar
Carolyn Dr
Joan Dr
Los Altos Dr
Del Rey Ct Los Altos Dr
Rio Del Mar
Alta Loma Dr
Carolyn Dr
Carolyn Dr
Altos Dr
Cassayre
Rio Del Mar
Los Altos Dr
Los Altos Dr
Rio Del Mar
Gisela Dr
Melvin Rd
Cassayre Dr
[
Printed On: 4/11/2026
0 2.25 4.5 9
mi
Disclaimer: This map was prepared for informational
purposes only. No liability is assumed for the
accuracy of the data delineated hereon.
County of Napa
Produced by Napa County GIS
Sources: Esri, Vantor, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community, USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography 221
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
STAFF REPORT
BUSINESS
ITEM NUMBER: 13.
TITLE
Support and Funding Commitment for State Route 29 Corridor Improvement Project
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolu-on suppor-ng the American Canyon State Route 29 Corridor Improvement Project and committing up to $5,000,000 in funding for future project phases.
CONTACT
Jason Holley, City Manager
Danielle Schmitz, Executive Director, Napa Valley Transportation Agency
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
The Napa Valley Transporta-on Authority (NVTA), in coopera-on with the California Department of Transporta-on (Caltrans) and the City of American Canyon (City), is proposing to improve State Route 29 (SR 29) within American Canyon. The "American Canyon State Route 29 Corridor Improvement Project" (Project) seeks to address various opera-onal and safety needs along the SR 29 corridor. The current phase is wrapping up and with construc-on ac-vi-es around the corner, NVTA is seeking funding commitments and continued local support from American Canyon.
Project Initiation Document (PID) Phase (2021-2024)
Although substan-al planning efforts were undertaken in the early 2010's, the Project achieved compliance with the State's Climate Ac-on Plan for Transporta-on Infrastructure (CAPTI) (AAachment 7) when NVTA completed the SR 29 Comprehensive Mulmodal Corridor Plan(CMCP) in May 2020 (Attachment 6).
Following comple-on of the CMCP, NVTA completed the SR 29 Project Study Report – Project Development Support(PSR-PDS), also referred to as the "project ini-a-on document" (PID) (AAachment 5). The SR 29 PSR-PDS aligns with CMCP Guidelines - making it eligible for SB 1 funding - and adheres to Caltrans’ Project Development Procedures Manual by evalua-ng high-el vel project alterna-ves, defining scope, cost, and schedule for each op-on. Comple-on of the PID resulted in a cri-cal milestone when Caltrans issued the Project ID (EA 04-4Q010) thereby cemen-ng the Project's bonafides within the vast, complicated array of statewide transporta-on funding programs.
222
Project Approval and Environmental Document (PAED) Phase (2024-2027) The PSR-PDS contemplates two alterna-ves, but as explained to Council on February 3, only Alterna-ve 1 is moving forward through environmental review. Alterna-ve 1 enhances traffic signals with transit signal priority along with "queue jump lanes", and signal interconnec-on to op-mize traffic flow and opera-onal efficiency. It also includes enhanced pedestrian crossings, transit stops, relocated overhead u-li-es, new bicycle and pedestrian facili-es (i.e. Class I trail) and landscaping.
Alterna-ve 1 does not include roundabouts. Neither the CMCP nor the PSR-PSD contains gradeseparated pedestrian crossings; however, nothing precludes the City from locally pursuing them once the Project is complete.
Consistent with Cooperative Agreement No. 04-2957 (Attachment 4), N VTA is nearing completion of the PAED phase. This phase produces two key deliverables - a "Project Report" securing Caltrans approval and an environmental document ensuring compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Na-onal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The PAED phase is scheduled to conclude in Spring 2027.
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase and Right-Of-Way/Utility Relocation (ROW) Phase (2027-2029) The next two phases of the Project (i.e. PE Phase and ROW Phase) are poised to commence upon conclusion of the PAED Phase subject to available funding. These phases run in tandem and once complete and funding is secured, then construction can begin.
The overall proposed Project funding strategy is shown on Attachment1, Ex. A:
NVTA is reques-ng American Canyon demonstrate its support for the Project by offering a commitment of $5.0M during the various upcoming phases (AAachment 2). The request amount represents less than 10% of the total cost. Staff recommends the Council adopts a Resolu-on of support and funding commitment (AAachment 1). This Resolu-on will be included in grant applications later this fall.
COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Transporta-on: "Improve the transporta-on network within the City to alleviate conges-on and enhance the quality of life for the community."
FISCAL IMPACT
The es-mated project cost including the current PAED phase and all other future phases is $67.7M.
To date, the City has contributed $1.0M of the $4.7M spent. Prospec-vely, American Canyon is being asked to contribute another $5M for a total of $6M (or 9% of the cost). By way of reference, most state and federal transporta-on programs require at least 20% local match - or more than 2x what is being asked of American Canyon.
223
The Recommended Ac-on commits the City to contribu-ng $5.0 M to future phases of the Project.
The most likely source of funding is Traffic Impact Fee (Fund 320). The TIF Fund has a Fund Balance of approximately $5.1M. However, the TIF Fund has a large encumbrance ($4.9M for the Rio Del Mar Extension Project TR26-0200) and thus, minimal remaining unrestricted balance. Another Council item tonight seeks to advance addi-onal revenue collec-on in the TIF program through the update of traffic impact fees.
The General Fund could also be a source of funding - especially if voters approve addi-onal sales tax revenue this fall.
The exact -meline for making these payments is unknown and dependent upon receipt of state and federal funding.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Recommended Action (approving a letter of support and funding commitment) is not a "project" under CEQA (GC 15378(b)).
NVTA is the lead agency for the Project and is currently preparing an Ini-al Study/Mi-gated Nega-ve Declara-on (IS/MND). The MND will be circulated for public comment prior to the NVTA Board taking action to approve the Project.
COMMUNICATION
Level 4: Robust Communication & Engagement
Below is list of community engagement and outreach ac-vi-es undertaken by NVTA and the City over the past 6 years, which has includes the input of more than 200 community members:
SR29 CMCP Phase
November 12, 2019 - Public Meeting/Workshop
April 23, 2020 - Public Meeting/Workshop
PID Phase
April 20, 2021 - Council Update
October 4, 2021 - Public Meeting/Workshop
April 20, 2022 - Public Meeting/Workshop
PA&ED Phase
February 4, 2025 - Council Update
April 30, 2025 - Public Meeting/Workshop
February 3, 2026 - Council Update
May 27, 2026 - Public Meeting/Workshop
224
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. NVTA Funding Request
3. NVTA Presentation
4. Co-Operative Agreement No. 04-2957
5. SR-29 PSR-PDS
6. SR-29 CMCP
7. CAPTI 2.0 (2025)
225
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-______
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON SUPPORTING THE AMERICAN CANYON STATE ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND COMMITTING UP TO $5,000,000 IN FUNDING FOR FUTURE PROJECT PHASES
WHEREAS, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of American Canyon (City), is developing the American Canyon State Route 29 Corridor Improvement Project (Project) to address operational, safety, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian deficiencies along State Route 29 within American Canyon; and WHEREAS, NVTA completed the State Route 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan in May 2020 and subsequently completed the Project Study Report-Project Development Support, establishing the Project's preliminary scope, cost, and schedule and advancing it into the Caltrans project development process; and
WHEREAS, NVTA is advancing Alternative 1, signalization improvements, through the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase, including transit signal priority, queue-jump lanes, enhanced pedestrian crossings, transit stop improvements, relocated overhead utilities, a Class I bicycle and pedestrian facility, and landscaping; and
WHEREAS, the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase is scheduled for completion in spring 2027, after which final design, right-of-way acquisition, and utility relocation may proceed, subject to completion of environmental clearance and the availability of funding; and WHEREAS, NVTA will lead final design, right-of-way acquisition, and utility relocation and will be responsible for securing the majority of the funding necessary to deliver the Project; and WHEREAS, the preliminary total cost for the current and future phases of the Project is approximately $67.7 million, of which approximately $4.7 million has been programmed to date; and WHEREAS, the City has actively participated as a Project partner with NVTA and Caltrans, has contributed approximately $1.0 million toward the PA&ED phase, and proposes an additional contribution of up to $5.0 million, bringing the City's total participation to approximately $6.0 million, or approximately nine percent of the preliminary total Project cost; and WHEREAS, a documented local funding commitment will demonstrate continued City support, help NVTA compete for state and federal funds, and reduce the risk of a delay between environmental approval and the remaining pre-construction phases; and WHEREAS, supporting the Project is consistent with the City Council priority to improve the City's transportation network, alleviate congestion, and enhance quality of life in the community. 226
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon hereby resolves as follows:
1. The City Council supports continued development of the American Canyon State Route 29 Corridor Improvement Project and NVTA's pursuit of regional, state, and federal funding for the Project.
2. The City commits to provide up to $5,000,000 for eligible future Project costs consistent with the proposed funding program shown in Ex. A.
3. The City Manager or designee is authorized to negotiate and execute the funding agreement or agreements described in Section 3, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney and provided that the City's total additional contribution does not exceed $5,000,000 without further City Council approval.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon held on the 15th day of September 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk Teresa L. Highsmith, City Attorney 227
Exhibit A – Proposed Funding Program
SR 29 American Canyon Corridor Improvements Funding by Phase Phase Funding Source
Amount
($1,000s) Status FY
PAED OBAG 3 3,000committed 23-24
City of American Canyon 1,000committed 23-24
RM 3 700committed 23-24
PAED Subtotal 4,700
PS&E Congressional Earmark/RM3 2,000uncommitted26-27
City of American Canyon 2,000committed 26-27
OBAG 4 2,000uncommitted26-27
PS&E Subtotal 6,000
ROW/UTILRM 3 1,000uncommitted28-29
City of American Canyon 3,000committed 28-29
ROW/Utilities Subtotal 4,000
CON RM 3 3,000uncommitted28-29
SS4A 10,000uncommitted28-29
Measure U 3,000uncommitted28-29
SB 1 30,000uncommitted28-29
CON
Support Measure U 7,000uncommitted28-29
Construction Subtotal $53,000
Total Project Cost $67,700
228
229
230
231
232
AMERICAN CANYON SR-29
CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS:
PROJECT UPDATE & FUNDING
STRATEGY
• September 15, 2026
• Danielle Schmitz
• Executive Director
• Grant Bailey, P.E.
• Program Manager - Engineer
233
2 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Purpose of Today’s Update
• Project Scope Review
• Update on Project Status Since February
2026 Council Meeting & Upcoming
Milestones
• Project Schedule
• Funding Strategy Recommendation
234
3 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Project Scope
Curb
Ramps
Dedicated
Bike & Ped
Trails
Shorter
Crossings,
Median
Refuges
Landscaping
& Trees
Bus
Queue
Jumps
Underground
Utilities
Adaptive
Signals
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval 235
4 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Since We Last Met
• Selected Preferred Alternative
• Signalization improvements selected as
build alternative in April 2026
• Public Workshop #2 held in May 2026
• Public Feedback Received:
• Class I trail composition
• Mobility hub location
• General Input
• Upcoming Milestones:
• January 2027 – Release Draft
Environmental Document
• March 2027 – Approve Final ED and
Project Report
• April 2027 – Kickoff design phase work
236
5 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
NOW–MAR 2027
Environmental
clearance
Obtain environmental
clearance and
Caltrans project
approval.
2027–2028
Final design
Prepare plans,
specifications
and estimate.
2028-2029
Right-of-way &
utilities
Acquire property
interests and
relocate utilities.
Construction
Construct
the project –
funding
dependent.
2029 - 2030
Project Schedule
237
6 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Project Funding Strategy
SR 29 American Canyon Corridor Improvements Funding by Phase Phase Funding Source Amount ($1,000s) Status FY
PAED OBAG 3 3,000committed 23-24
City of American Canyon 1,000committed 23-24
RM 3 700committed 23-24
PAED Subtotal 4,700
PS&E Congressional Earmark/RM3 2,000uncommitted 26-27
Local 2,000uncommitted 26-27
OBAG 4 2,000uncommitted 26-27
PS&E Subtotal 6,000
ROW/UTIL RM 3 1,000uncommitted 28-29
Local 3,000uncommitted 28-29
ROW/Utilities Subtotal 4,000
CON RM 3 3,000uncommitted 28-29
SS4A 10,000uncommitted 28-29
Measure U 3,000uncommitted 28-29
SB 1 30,000uncommitted 28-29
CON Support Measure U 7,000uncommitted 28-29
Construction Subtotal 53,000
Total Project Cost $67,700 238
7 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Funding Request
$5 million for design and right-of-way
phases
The request is structured to match the two pre-construction funding needs that follow environmental clearance.
$2M
Final Design (PS&E)
Needed as final design begins in 2027
$3M
Right-of-way & utility relocation
Anticipated for early 2029
Combined with the $1 million already invested, the City’s total project participation would be approximately $6 million. 239
8 American Canyon SR 29 Corridor
Relative City Share
Current project estimate
~$68M
$15M pre-construction + $53M construction
9%
91%
Total City investment
NVTA / regional /
state / federal
~9%
Total anticipated City share
~91%
$62M expected from NVTA and
regional, state and federal partners
Every $1 of total City investment is paired with
about $10.33 from other partners.
240
Requested Council Direction
Support a $5 million City contribution to NVTA’s State Route 29 American Canyon Corridor Improvements Project:
• $2 million for final design in 2027; and
• $3 million for right of way and utility relocation activities in 2029.
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
State Route 29
Comprehensive
Multimodal
Corridor
Plan
Final Plan
May 2020
560
Acknowledgments
This plan was prepared for
Napa Valley Transportation Authority
Napa County
City of Napa
City of American Canyon
Caltrans District 4
This plan was prepared by
GHD
With support from
Regional Government Services
Elite Transportation Group
This project received funding from the
Transportation Development Act, Congestion Management Agency Planning Funds, and the City of American Canyon.
561
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | i Table of Contents
Executive Summary 7
1 - Introduction 13
Study Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Study Approach ............................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Public Outreach Overview.......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Organization of this Plan ............................................................................................................................................................. 19 2 - Planning Guidance and Metrics 20
Planning Context ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Smart Mobility Framework ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 Performance Metrics .................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Data Collection/Retrieval ........................................................................................................................................................... 28 Analysis Tool Development ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 3 - Public Outreach 33
Community Workshops .............................................................................................................................................................. 33 Staff Working Group .................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Media 35
4 - Baseline Conditions 38
Regional Context ............................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Observed Travel Patterns .......................................................................................................................................................... 43 Roadway Operations ....................................................................................................................................................................48 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress ................................................................................................................................................. 57 Transit .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 60 Collision Data ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 61 5 - Corridor Solutions 66
Parallel Capacity Improvements ............................................................................................................................................ 68 SR 29 Multimodal Improvements ......................................................................................................................................... 70 562
ii | TABLE OF CONTENTS
Intersection Improvements ....................................................................................................................................................... 73 Shared Use Paths ........................................................................................................................................................................... 77 Grade-Separated Pedestrian Crossings ............................................................................................................................ 80 Transit .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Integrated Corridor Management ..........................................................................................................................................84 6-Performance Assessment 89
Induced Demand/Bicycle Mode Shift Benefits .............................................................................................................. 90 Multimodal Connectivity/ Level of Traffic Stress .......................................................................................................... 92 Transit Ridership ............................................................................................................................................................................. 95 Vehicle Operations ........................................................................................................................................................................ 96 Travel Time Reliability .................................................................................................................................................................. 96 Safety .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 98 Interconnected Streets and Integrated Corridor Management ............................................................................. 99 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 101 Environmental Justice and Social Equity ........................................................................................................................ 102 Economic Development ........................................................................................................................................................... 105 Adaptation Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................ 106 Plan/Policy Consistency ............................................................................................................................................................ 110 Emerging Technologies Assessment .................................................................................................................................... 111 7-Benefit Monetization Assessment 113
Improvement Costs ....................................................................................................................................................................... 113 Comprehensive Benefit-Cost Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 115 8 - Preferred Corridor Plan 120
The Preferred Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................... 120 Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... 125 Appendices provided under separate cover:
Appendix A Solano-Napa Activity Based Model Sub-Area Validation Report Appendix B SR 29 CMCP VISSIM Microsimulation Model Development Report Appendix C Public Outreach Materials
Appendix D Public Workshop Summary Reports
Appendix E Bicycle LTS Methodology
Appendix F Induced Demand Analysis Results and Methodology Appendix G Transit Ridership Projection
Appendix H Safety Benefit Calculation Worksheets
563
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | iii List of Figures
Figure 1: Regional Context ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2: SR 29 Study Corridor .............................................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 3: SR 29 Microsimulation Model Network Development ......................................................................................... 32 Figure 4: Employment Concentrations Served by the SR 29 Corridor ........................................................................... 38 Figure 5: Resident Locations and Concentration (LEHD) ..................................................................................................... 40 Figure 6: Job Locations and Concentration (LEHD) .................................................................................................................. 41 Figure 7: Employment Origin-Destinations (LEHD) ................................................................................................................. 44 Figure 8: Worker Inflow/Outflow (LEHD) ....................................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 9: Existing Turn Movement Counts ..................................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 10: Congestion – Weekday AM Peak ................................................................................................................................. 50 Figure 11: Congestion – Weekday PM Peak ..................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 12: Congestion – Weekend PM Peak ................................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 13: Buffer Time Index – Weekday AM Peak ..................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 14: Buffer Time Index – Weekday PM Peak ..................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 15: Buffer Time Index – Weekend PM Peak ..................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 16: Total Time Required for Reliably Traveling Northbound on SR 29 ............................................................. 57 Figure 17: Total Time Required for Reliably Traveling Southbound on SR 29 ............................................................. 57 Figure 18: Existing Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) .......................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 19: Regional Vine Transit Routes Serving Corridor1 ................................................................................................... 60 Figure 20: Non-PDO Study Area Collisions, 2014-2018 ............................................................................................................ 61 Figure 21: Pedestrian Collision .............................................................................................................................................................. 64 Figure 22: Bicycle Collisions ................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 23 Devlin Road Parallel Capacity .......................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 24 South Kelly Road/Newell Drive Parallel Capacity ................................................................................................. 69 Figure 25: SR 29 Multimodal Improvements Segment Overview ....................................................................................... 71 Figure 26: SR 29 Multimodal Improvements Segment One ................................................................................................... 71 Figure 27: SR 29 Multimodal Improvements Segment Two .................................................................................................. 72 Figure 28: SR 29 Multimodal Improvements Segment Three ............................................................................................... 72 Figure 29: Carneros Junction Intersection Improvements ..................................................................................................... 73 Figure 30: Airport Boulevard/SR 12/SR 29 Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................ 74 Figure 31: Airport Boulevard/SR 12/ SR 29 Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................... 75 Figure 32: Soscol Junction Intersection Improvement – Overhead View ...................................................................... 76 564
iv | TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 33: Soscol Junction Intersection Improvement – Perspective View .................................................................. 76 Figure 34: Proposed Vine Trail Alignment (Northern Corridor) ......................................................................................... 78 Figure 35: Proposed Vine Trail Alignment (Southern Corridor) ......................................................................................... 78 Figure 36: Proposed Bay Trail Alignment (Northern Corridor) ........................................................................................... 79 Figure 37: Proposed Bay Trail Alignment (Southern Corridor) ........................................................................................... 79 Figure 38: Grade-Separated Pedestrian Crossings ................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 39: Transit Improvements - Northern Study Area ....................................................................................................... 81 Figure 40: Transit Improvements – Central Study Area ......................................................................................................... 82 Figure 41: Transit Improvements - Southern Study Area ....................................................................................................... 83 Figure 42: Integrated Corridor Management Improvements ............................................................................................... 85 Figure 43: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress with Improvements ........................................................................................... 94 Figure 44: Study Area CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Results ............................................................................................................... 103 Figure 45: Regional Disadvantaged Community and Low Income Context .............................................................. 104 Figure 46: Storm Surge (Sea-Level Rise) Vulnerability Map .............................................................................................. 107 Figure 47: Wildfire and Flood Risk Vulnerability Map ............................................................................................................ 108 Figure 48: Preferred Plan: Imola Avenue to Soscol Junction ............................................................................................... 121 Figure 49: Preferred Plan: Soscol Junction to Green Island Road .................................................................................... 122 Figure 50: Preferred Plan: Green Island Road to State Route 37 ..................................................................................... 123 List of Tables
Table 1: Performance Measures of Effectiveness and Analysis Tools ............................................................................... 24 Table 2: SNABM Sub-Area Validation Results ............................................................................................................................... 31 Table 3: LEHD Journey to Work Origin-Destination Pairs ..................................................................................................... 43 Table 4: Existing Conditions Level of Service (AM Peak Hour) ...........................................................................................48 Table 5: Existing Conditions Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) .......................................................................................... 49 Table 6: Buffer Time Index Thresholds ............................................................................................................................................. 53 Table 7: Existing VINE Transit Ridership - Routes 29 and 11X ............................................................................................... 61 Table 8: Study Area Non-PDO Collisions, 2014-2018 ................................................................................................................ 62 Table 9: Study Area Non-PDO Collisions on State Routes, 2014-2018 ............................................................................ 62 Table 10: Bicycle Collisions, 2014-2018 ............................................................................................................................................. 63 Table 11: Pedestrian Collisions, 2014-2018........................................................................................................................................ 63 Table 12: Public Outreach Concept Preference Polling Results ........................................................................................... 67 Table 13: Study Area Induced Demand Results ............................................................................................................................ 91 565
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | v Table 14: Reduction in Trips and VMT Associated with Induced Demand .................................................................... 92 Table 15: Annualized Transit Ridership Increases........................................................................................................................ 95 Table 16: Annualized VMT Reduction Associated with Transit Ridership ...................................................................... 95 Table 17: Roadway Operations Measures of Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 96 Table 18: Travel Time Results by Scenario – All Vehicle Types ........................................................................................... 97 Table 19: Level of Service – SR 29 CMCP (Planned) Improvements 2040 Network (AM Peak Hour) ............ 97 Table 20: Level of Service SR 29 CMCP (Planned) Improvements 2040 Network (PM Peak Hour) .............. 98 Table 21: Crash Reduction Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 99 Table 22: Scenario # 1 Travel Time................................................................................................................................................... 100 Table 23: Scenario # 2 Travel Time ................................................................................................................................................. 100 Table 24: Air Quality Benefits - Operational Improvements ................................................................................................ 101 Table 25: Air Quality Benefits - Bike Related Improvements .............................................................................................. 101 Table 26: Air Quality Benefits - Transit Improvements .......................................................................................................... 102 Table 27: Travel Time Results by Scenario – Trucks Only .................................................................................................... 105 Table 28: Transit Service Frequency Improvements Costs ................................................................................................... 113 Table 29: Total Rounded Improvement Costs ............................................................................................................................. 114 Table 30: Bicycle Mode Shift Benefits – Total Study Area..................................................................................................... 115 Table 31: Bicycle Mode Shift Life-Cycle Benefits ......................................................................................................................... 115 Table 32: Air Quality Benefits – Bicycle Mode Shift .................................................................................................................. 116 Table 33: Air Quality Benefits - Transit Improvements ........................................................................................................... 116 Table 34: Delay and Buffer Time Index Benefit ........................................................................................................................... 117 Table 35: Air Quality Benefits – Vehicle Operations Improvements ................................................................................. 117 Table 36: Safety Benefit Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 118 Table 37: ICM Benefits Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 118 Table 38: Air Quality Benefits Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 119 Table 39: Monetized Benefits Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 119 Table 40: Comprehensive Benefit-Cost Summary .................................................................................................................... 119 Table 41: SR 29 CMCP Implementation & Prioritization Matrix .......................................................................................... 126
566
vi | TABLE OF CONTENTS
[This page is intentionally left blank]
567
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 7 Executive Summary
This Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the following State Route 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (SR 29 CMCP) report and highlights the resulting Preferred Corridor Plan.
While this Executive Summary was prepared to convey an overall summary of the report and resulting Corridor Plan, the study and its appendices should be referenced for additional detail on methodology and findings.
The SR 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (SR 29 CMCP) evaluates the most constrained portion of SR 29 – an 11.5-mile portion that stretches from Imola Avenue (designated SR 121 east of SR 29) in the City of Napa to SR 37 in the City of Vallejo. The study corridor is shown below.
Study Objective
The objective of the SR 29 CMCP is to develop a
comprehensive multimodal package of prioritized
improvements that address the corridor’s pre-eminent
issues, including:
Traffic congestion and delay;
Increased crash risks for all users;
Lack of low-stress multimodal connectivity;
Reduced travel time and transit reliability;
The preferred package of multimodal improvements must
be feasible, equitable, cost-effective, and have community support. The preferred multimodal improvement package
will serve to guide future SR 29 corridor programming
decisions over a 20-year timeframe based on available
funding. Enhancements for multimodal travel, parallel
capacity, operational, and telecommunication strategies were a key focus of the SR 29 CMCP. Requisite technical information consistent with State and Federal grant
program guidelines and implementation phasing of the
multimodal improvement package were also key elements
of the Plan.
Study Approach
The SR 29 CMCP examines the existing and future operational and safety performance of SR 29 using the Caltrans Smart Mobility Framework approach, a performance-based analysis performed to develop and evaluate alternative corridor improvement concepts. The results of the performance analysis were combined with substantial input from the public to inform the ultimate selection of the SR 29 preferred N.T.S.
568
8 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
corridor concept recommendation. The SR 29 preferred corridor concept with associated multimodal improvements establishes the funding priorities for the corridor that best meet both the local and regional goals while providing the highest return on investment (benefit-cost) of limited regional transportation funding over the next 20 years.
The SR 29 CMCP builds on a solid foundation of plans, policy documents, and community outreach efforts already completed along the SR 29 corridor. In particular, the SR 29 CMCP is a continuation of the outreach, analysis, and findings from the SR 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan (NVTA, 2014).
Public Outreach Overview
The SR 29 CMCP outreach effort was robust in its
focus on reaching the diverse communities. This
outreach effort included two community
workshops, a Staff Working Group comprising of all
the partner agencies, and a robust online public
engagement campaign including an interactive
mapping tool. The mapping tool was made
available on the project website beginning in early
November 2019 and remained “live” through March
2020.
Corridor Solutions
Upon review of past planning and other corridor-related documents and establishment of evaluation performance metrics (Chapter 2 of the report), the public was engaged for their input (Chapter 3) and a thorough assessment of existing conditions was conducted (Chapter 4). These combined efforts led to the identification and evaluation of a focused group of Corridor Solutions (Chapter 5). These corridor solutions were identified based on prior efforts from the SR 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan and from the needs analysis prepared as part of this study.
Seven categories of potential corridor improvements were identified. Within each of these categories, 24 separate and distinct improvements and/or services were described. Each of the improvements within these seven categories were costed and prioritized for future grant funding and implementation. The categories are outlined below.
Parallel Capacity Improvements
SR 29 Multimodal Improvements
Intersection Improvements
Shared Use Paths
SMART Train Extensions
Bus Improvements
Integrated Corridor Management
Performance Assessment
The performance metrics selected for the SR 29 CMCP informed each of the six Smart Mobility Framework objectives to ensure that the resulting improvement recommendations provide a balanced, 569
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 9 sustainable, and multimodal assessment of current and forecasted corridor conditions. Requisite rubrics include:
Planning level cost opinions;
Mode shift and vehicle miles travelled;
Level of traffic stress scores;
Vehicular delay and buffer time reductions;
Collision reduction benefit;
Health and air quality benefit;
Societal cost and benefit monetization factors (per Caltrans 2018 Economic Parameters); and, Return on investment (i.e. benefit-cost).
Equal attention was given to document the beneficial outcomes of measures not directly reflected in the benefit-cost assessment. These include: Plan Consistency (with existing plans); Policy Consistency (NVTA, the City and County of Napa, City of American Canyon and Caltrans); Environmental/Institutional Sensitivity; Adaptation; Economic Development and, Community Acceptance.
Benefit Monetization Assessment
The societal costs and benefits were monetized based on the societal cost information from the Caltrans 2016 and 2018 Economic Parameters, using the Caltrans Cal-B/C analysis tool. All quantified benefits were annualized and projected to reflect a 20-year design year condition (i.e., life-cycle costs). These monetized benefits were then combined with currently available planning level improvement cost opinions (described below) to yield a holistic benefit-cost estimate for each project alternative. The total estimated benefit for the proposed corridor improvements was $699,589,714 over 20 years.
Cot estimates were sourced from previous planning documents, reviewed and adjusted to be consistent with existing costs, where possible. Where not available, preliminary planning-level costs were developed by project team planning and engineering staff. The individual corridor improvement cost estimates are presented in the report. The total estimated life-cycle costs for the proposed corridor improvements is $404,515,000.
The comprehensive benefit cost for all improvements proposed within the study corridor. When monetized to a 20-Year life cycle, the benefit-cost equates to 1.73. This means that the overall benefit over 20-years is nearly 75% over the actual capital and maintenance costs expended over that same period of time.
Total Project
Life-Cycle Cost
Life Cycle
Benefit (20 Yrs.)
$404,515,000 $699,589,714
Total B/C 1.73
Preferred Corridor Plan
The following Preferred Corridor Plan, which represents implementation of the prioritized multimodal improvement package, is the achieved outcome of this study. The Preferred Corridor Plan consider public input and the application of the Smart Mobility Framework to assess holistic performance measures that align with State and Federal grant application requirements, yielding a competitive result. 570
10 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Preferred Corridor Plan: Imola Avenue to Soscol Junction (Figure 1 of 3) N.T.S.
571
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 11 Preferred Corridor Plan: Soscol Junction to Green Island Road (Figure 2 of 3) N.T.S.
572
12 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Preferred Corridor Plan: Green Island Road to State Route 37 (Figure 3 of 3) N.T.S.
573
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 13 1 - Introduction
State Route (SR) 29 is part of the California Freeway and Expressway System within Caltrans District 4. It serves as the gateway to the world-renowned Napa Valley, extending from SR 20 in Lake County to Interstate 80 (I-80) in Solano County, as shown in Figure 1. The highway connects the Napa County cities of Calistoga, St. Helena, Yountville, Napa, and American Canyon. Immediately south of American Canyon, the highway connects the City of Vallejo in Solano County where it ultimately terminates at I-80. As the prime freight and agricultural access route for residents and wine industry businesses, SR 29 provides a vital regional connection to both the San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley. Daily travel within Napa County ranges from 40,000 to 70,000 vehicles per day, including people commuting to work, tourists visiting the legendary wine region, and special event traffic.
Portions of SR 29 are eligible for inclusion into the State Scenic Highway System, although they are not currently designated as such. The historic alignment of SR 29 began as Old Bull Trail Road in the 1850s, which included steep grades up to 35 percent. That road was replaced by the St Helena Toll Road in 1868, which reduced inclines to 12 percent. During World War II, the highway was widened again to support military operations at the US Naval Base on Mare Island in Vallejo, leading to the current fourlane configuration. SR 29 is classified as a conventional highway throughout the study area. A portion of SR 29 is classified as a freeway between postmile 8.66 and 13.01, from the Imola Avenue (SR 121) interchange to the Trancas Street / Redwood Road interchange.
The SR 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (SR 29 CMCP) evaluates the most constrained portion of SR 29 – an 11.5-mile portion that stretches from Imola Avenue (designated SR 121 east of SR 29) in the City of Napa to SR 37 in the City of Vallejo. The study corridor is shown in Figure 2. There are several discontinuous parallel roadways in the study corridor including SR 221, SR 12, South and North Kelly Road, Devlin Road, Soscol Ferry Road, Soscol Creek Road, Newell Drive, Flosden Road, and Fairgrounds Drive. This lack of continuous alternative routes contributes to the congestion problems on SR 29 and has elevated the importance of this state route as a lifeline for many of the communities it serves.
The SR 29 study corridor experiences significant safety and operational issues during weekday and weekend peak hour conditions. The most pronounced issues in the corridor include:
Lack of multimodal connectivity particularly for bicycle and pedestrian access along and across SR 29;
Lack of low-stress routing options for bicyclists;
Lack of continuous parallel routes to support local and regional travel demand; Capacity constraints at key SR 29 intersections that cause extensive queuing and delays, extensive bottleneck durations, and unreliable travel times for both motorists and transit; Compromised feasibility to provide enhanced transit service due to travel time unreliability Increased safety risk and conflicts between motorists and active transportation users 574
14 | INTRODUCTION
Compromised emergency response times, evacuation routes and incident clearance capabilities.
Napa County residents have long expressed concerns about congestion and safety on SR 29. Area residents, commuters and others who regularly drive the corridor have noted the 11.5-mile segment between SR 121 and SR 37 is particularly challenging. In recognition of the regional importance of SR 29, its diminishing quality of service, and its priority need for improvement by the jurisdictions it serves, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) in partnership with Caltrans District 4, the County of Napa, and the Cities of Napa and American Canyon commissioned the 2014 SR 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan, and subsequently, this SR 29 CMCP.
The SR 29 CMCP builds on the efforts and recommendations of the 2014 SR 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan, expanding the study area to include parallel facilities and updating the analysis to assist in the prioritization of projects using the requisite performance measures necessary to move priority projects into implementation through competitive Statewide and Federal grant programs.
Study Purpose
The purpose of The SR 29 CMCP is to inventory known planned and programmed corridor improvements identified in prior corridor planning efforts to form a comprehensive multimodal package of prioritized improvements. The preferred package of multimodal improvements should improve the quality of and access to active transportation, thus encouraging travel mode shift from single occupant vehicles to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel, consistent with Caltrans Deputy Directive DD-64-R2 and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) policies for implementation of “Complete Streets”.
The preferred package of multimodal improvements must be feasible, equitable, cost-effective, and have community support. The preferred multimodal package of improvements will serve to systematically guide future SR 29 corridor programming decisions over a 20-year timeframe based on available funding. Multimodal improvements, parallel capacity, operational, and telecommunication strategies were a key focus of the SR 29 CMCP.
Requisite technical information consistent with State and Federal grant program guidelines and implementation phasing of the multimodal improvement package were also key elements of the SR 29 CMCP. In order to ensure that the SR 29 CMCP successfully serves to inform future Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) grant applications, the SR 29 CMCP was prepared following Caltrans’ Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan Guidelines (December 2018) and Corridor Planning Process Guide (February 2020). The SCCP is a funding program created by Senate Bill 1 (Beal, 2017), also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. 575
Cities
Study Corridor Boundary
State Highways
Legend
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\Fig 2 - Vicinity Map.qgs Data Source:
Created By: Rosanna Southern
Document Path: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Deliverables \Fig 2 - Vicinity Map.qgs
Map Projection: Mercator Auxillary Sphere Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984 Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxillary Sphere Paper Size ANSI A
FIGURE 1
03/26/2020
-
1187559
Date.
Revision No.
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Project No.
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
REGIONAL CONTEXT
Not To Scale
576
Corcoran
Borges
Newell Dr
American Canyon Rd
Napa Val el y Corporate Dr Wetlands Edge Rd
Elliott Dr
Meadows
Rio DelMar
Soscol Ferry R d
Mini
S Kelly Rd
Fairgrounds
Dona ldson Way
Green Island Rd
WAmerican Canyon Rd
Airport Blvd
Devlin Rd
N Kelly Rd
Eucalyptus Dr
Airport Rd
Flosden Rd
Donaldson Way W Donaldson Way E
Mini
|121 }þ
|}þ12
|}þ29
|}þ29
|}þ37
|}þ80
|}þ29
|}þ12
|}þ121
|}þ221
FIGURE 2
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
Project No.
Revision No. -
11187559
Date 3/27/2020
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Grid: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Paper Size ANSI A
o \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\Study Boundary.mxd Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: rsouthern Print date: 27 Mar 2020 - 16:18
Legend
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
SR 29 CMCP
STUDY CORRIDOR
State Highways
Railroads
Local Roads
Study Corridor
577
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 17 Study Approach
To determine the most cost-effective solution for resolving the various operational and safety needs on the SR 29 corridor, the SR 29 CMCP holistically examines the existing and future operational and safety performance of SR 29 from its juncture with SR 37 to Imola Avenue (approximately 11.5 miles). Using the Smart Mobility Framework approach, a performance-based analysis was performed to develop and evaluate alternative corridor improvement concepts. The results of the performance analysis were combined with substantial input from the public to inform the ultimate selection of the SR 29 preferred corridor concept recommendation. The SR 29 preferred corridor concept with associated multimodal improvements establishes the funding priorities for the corridor that best meet both the local and regional goals while providing the highest return on investment (benefit-cost) of limited regional transportation funding over the next 20 years.
The SR 29 CMCP includes the following primary objectives:
Draw from existing data sources and apply advanced data collection technology and resources such as multiple “Big Data” sources and video to establish travel characteristics, traffic counts, vehicle speeds, and travel time variation trends to establish an accurate baseline; With direct input from the public, develop a preferred corridor concept that: 1) maximizes efficiency and safety; 2) achieves acceptable operating conditions relative to projected future demand; 3) improves air quality, economic development, and social equity; 4) is context sensitive in accord with SR 29’s rural and scenic character; and, 5) minimizes potential impacts to the natural environment;
Consistent with Caltrans’ Smart Mobility Framework 2010 and the 2018 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan Guidelines and SB 1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program Guidelines from the California Transportation Commission (CTC), perform a transparent and objective performance-based analysis to identify a preferred corridor concept to calculate lifecycle benefit-costs that support infrastructure investment decisions made by NVTA, MTC, Caltrans District 4, and other stakeholders including the County of Napa and the cities of Napa and American Canyon.
The SR 29 CMCP builds on a solid foundation of plans, policy documents, and community outreach efforts already completed along the SR 29 corridor.
In particular, the SR 29 CMCP is a continuation of
the outreach, analysis, and findings from the SR 29
Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan (NVTA, 2014).
The SR 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan
was a community driven vision and improvement
strategy for the southern portion of SR 29 from the
Vallejo Ferry Terminal to the Trancas Park & Ride
lot (near Redwood Road in the City of Napa). It
included extensive public outreach, engaging the
community in conversations about transportation challenges on the corridor and identifying possible solutions. The Gateway Plan evaluated current and future travel conditions guided by community input to develop a corridor vision and identified multimodal safety and operation improvements to roadway sections and intersections. Given this prior planning groundwork, the SR 29 CMCP carries forward several 578
18 | INTRODUCTION
projects identified in the Gateway Plan alongside new improvement concepts and strategies for evaluation and community feedback.
The SR 29 CMCP expands the breadth of analysis beyond
what was addressed in the SR 29 Gateway Corridor
Improvement Plan. The CMCP broadens the planning area by including parallel facilities east and west of the highway and expands the technical analysis and performance assessment of the identified improvements consistent with State
guidance. However, the SR 29 CMCP study area ends south of Imola Avenue, rather than the Trancas Park & Ride lot.
Public Outreach Overview
An effective community engagement program creates
confidence in the planning process, promotes broad-based understanding, and reflects the interests and needs of the community. Successful implementation of the improvements recommended in this plan will require cooperation between NVTA, Napa County, the cities of Napa and American Canyon, and the community as a whole.
The SR 29 CMCP pivots off the prior Gateway Plan community engagement efforts. Gateway Plan input primarily focused on the identification of problem areas and needs which helped inform improvement recommendations. The SR 29 CMCP community engagement was strategically targeted to gauge the public’s support for the SR 29 CMCP candidate improvement concepts.
The SR 29 CMCP outreach effort is robust in its focus on reaching diverse communities. This outreach effort includes the following:
Community Workshops
o November 19, 2019
o April 23, 2020
Staff Working Group, including:
o Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)
o City of Napa
o City of American Canyon
o Napa County
o Caltrans District 4
Stakeholder Committee
Media
Project Logo Branding and Project Information Cards
Online Engagement
Interactive Mapping Tool
579
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 19 The input received through these various channels helped inform the SR 29 preferred improvement concept and associated multimodal improvements. The community workshops, their participation and insights as well as each of the other outreach efforts are more fully described in the Public Outreach section of this report.
Organization of this Plan
This plan is organized into seven chapters. These chapters include:
Chapter 1 – Introduction: includes a brief study background, study objective, approach/purpose and need, public outreach overview and organization of this SR 29 CMCP document Chapter 2 - Planning Guidance and Metrics: examines past planning documents for planning context and the Caltrans Smart Mobility Framework for performance criteria for selection of priority of improvements
Chapter 3 - Public Outreach: summarizes outreach process conducted to gather feedback on potential solutions and preferred concepts
Chapter 4 - Existing Conditions: documents findings from field observations, technical analyses, and models
Chapter 5 - Corridor Solutions: outlines the potential improvements identified for the corridor based on the existing conditions analysis and prior outreach conducted during the SR 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan
Chapter 6 - Performance Assessment: evaluates the preferred concept under current and future conditions based on performance metrics described in the Introduction Chapter 7 - Preferred Corridor Plan: describes the Preferred Corridor Plan that evolved from the Public Outreach and Performance Assessment efforts
In addition, appendices provided under separate cover have more detail on analysis methodology, data, and findings as well as community feedback.
580
20 | PLANNING GUIDANCE AND METRICS
2 - Planning Guidance and
Metrics
In providing an overall framework and planning guidance for the preparation of this SR 29 CMCP, an understanding of all past transportation related planning studies was needed as well as the performance criteria for establishing a Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan that meets mobility needs, is fundable and implementable. For this planning effort, the Caltrans Smart Mobility Framework 2010, as described in the following pages was utilized. It is consistent with both the 2018 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan Guidelines and the SB 1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program Guidelines from the California Transportation Commission (CTC).
Planning Context
In addition to the SR 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan, several other related planning documents were used to help inform the SR 29 CMCP. These are described below. It should be noted that the Caltrans District 4 System Planning division is currently developing the SR 29 Transportation Concept Report (TCR). As a key partner in the development of the SR 29 CMCP, Caltrans District 4 opted to delay completion of the SR 29 TCR until after adoption of the SR 29 CMCP to ensure the latest planning concepts for the corridor are considered for inclusion.
Countywide Bicycle Plan (2019)
The 2019 Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan outlines a strategy to make bicycling accessible and appealing to the broader county community, beyond those who have traditionally identified themselves as bicyclists. The plan focuses on developing lowstress bicycle routes, improving safety, and improving access for disadvantaged communities.
Identified improvements in the SR 29 CMCP study area include closing gaps in the San Francisco Bay Trail and the Napa Valley Vine Trail. A shared use path is also recommended on SR 221 from SR 29 to Imola Avenue, and bicycle lanes are recommended on SR 29. In American Canyon, shared use paths are proposed for both sides of SR 29 in addition to parallel off-street bicycle routes along Devlin Road and South Kelly Road.
581
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 21 Countywide Pedestrian Plan (2016)
The 2016 Countywide Pedestrian Plan aims to improve safety, convenience, and accessibility for people walking in Napa County. In addition to recommending new sidewalks and
accessibility features, the Pedestrian Plan carries forward recommendations for larger-scale improvements that would positively impact the experience for pedestrians, including roundabouts at First Street at SR 29.
Countywide Transportation Plan – Vision
2040: Moving Napa Forward (2014)
The Vision 2040 plan sets long-range goals and investment strategies for all modes of transportation in Napa County over the next 25 years. In addition to identifying multimodal improvements, it highlights the nexus between multimodal transportation and economic development, public health, and place-making.
582
22 | PLANNING GUIDANCE AND METRICS
Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study (2017)
The Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study identified and recommended operational and capital improvements for the express bus system in the Napa Valley. Many of these solutions are evaluated in this CMCP, including queue jumping, use of shoulders, and station improvements.
Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018)
The Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan is the first of its
kind in the State, evaluating bicycle needs across
the Bay Area's State transportation network. The
plan identifies infrastructure improvements to
enhance bicycle safety and mobility and remove
barriers to bicycling in the region. The plan
identifies SR 29 as a highway opportunity to
implement parallel trail or on-highway separated
bikeways, with the SR 29 alignment through
American Canyon in particular noted as a highpriority project.. 583
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 23 Smart Mobility Framework
Caltrans’ Smart Mobility Framework 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade provides a broad planning framework to guide multimodal and sustainable transportation planning and project development. It also provides tools to assess how plans, programs, and projects meet Smart Mobility goals throughout the State.
Smart Mobility moves people and freight while enhancing California’s economic, environmental, and human resources by emphasizing convenient and safe multimodal travel, speed suitability, accessibility, management of the circulation network, and efficient use of land.
The Smart Mobility Framework is premised on six key objectives: Location Efficiency; Reliable Mobility; Health and Safety; Environmental Stewardship; Social Equity; and, Robust Economy. These six objectives are informed through the application of seventeen candidate performance measures. The Smart Mobility Framework process is consistent with both the 2018 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan Guidelines and the SB 1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program Guidelines from the California Transportation Commission (CTC).
Source: Caltrans’ Smart Mobility Framework 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade The fundamental premise of the Smart Mobility Framework is to ensure that planning or programming decisions for transportation improvements are performance based, transparent, and address sustainable outcomes and objectives. The performance metrics selected for the SR 29 CMCP informed each of the six Smart Mobility Framework objectives to ensure that the resulting improvement recommendations provide a balanced, sustainable, and multimodal assessment of current and forecast corridor conditions.
Requisite rubrics include: planning level cost opinions; vehicular delay and buffer time reduction; level of traffic stress scores; mode shift and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction; collision reduction benefit; health and air quality benefit; societal cost and benefit monetization factors (per Caltrans 2018 Economic Parameters); and return on investment (i.e., benefit-cost). Equal attention will be given to documenting the beneficial outcomes of measures not directly reflected in the benefit-cost assessment. These include:
Plan Consistency (with existing plans); Policy Consistency (NVTA, the City and County of Napa, City of American Canyon and Caltrans); Environmental/Institutional Sensitivity; Adaptation; Economic Development and, Community Acceptance. Metrics selected for this SR 29 Plan are described on the following section. Results from this analysis were combined with substantial input from the public to inform the selection of the preferred multimodal corridor improvement package. 584
24 | PLANNING GUIDANCE AND METRICS
Performance Metrics
The performance metrics selected to evaluate this Plan are coordinated with the six objectives outlined in the Smart Mobility Framework to ensure the resulting improvement recommendations provide a balanced, sustainable, and multimodal assessment of current and future corridor conditions.
Many of these performance measures do not have established standards but were analyzed to better understand the existing and future operational characteristics of SR 29 and inform a comparative analysis of improvement concept alternatives. Use of additional metrics other than vehicular Level of Service (LOS) is consistent with the Smart Mobility Framework and with the recent Senate Bill (SB) 743 intended to streamline the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. Some metrics such as delay, collision reduction, mode shift, and vehicle miles of travel reduction can be monetized and were incorporated into a benefit-cost analysis. Other quantifiable indices, such as suitability scores (i.e. level of traffic stress analysis), adaptation assessments, economic development assessments, and environmental justice impacts, etc. are not conducive to being monetized. Although some of the presented performance metrics cannot be monetized, assessment of the results of these analyses provide value to informing improvement recommendations.
The measures of effectiveness for the SR 29 CMCP performance metrics and analysis tools used to generate each measure of effectiveness is mapped in matrix form in Table 1. Also shown is whether the measure can be monetized for inclusion in a benefit-cost assessment. The performance measures by Smart Mobility Framework objective are described on the following pages.
Table 1: Performance Measures of Effectiveness and Analysis Tools Analysis Purpose Measure of Effectiveness
Model or Analysis Tool
Solano-Napa ABM Microsimulation Level of Traffic Stress NCHRP 552 Method TCRP 118 Elasticity HSM Part C CMFs SB1 Emissions Calc. GIS Analysis Online Mapping Tools Literature Review NPMRDS/INRIX Monetized Benefit? Baseline Travel Demand Trips, Ridership, VMT Y
Future Travel Demand Trips, Ridership, VMT Y
Roadway Operations Delay, Buffer Time,
Throughput
Y
Transit Ridership Ridership, VMT Y
Pedestrian/Bike Connectivity Access Indices N
Pedestrian/Bike Mode Shift Trips, VMT Y
Safety Collision Reduction, Rate Y
Air Quality Emissions (criteria, GHG) Y
Social Equity Access, Benefit/Burden N
Economic Development GRP, Jobs, Income N
Health VMT Y
Adaptation Network Vulnerability N
585
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 25 Location Efficiency
Accessibility and Connectivity
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (Bicycle LTS) measures a bicyclist’s perceived sense of risk associated with riding in or adjacent to vehicle traffic. Roadways are assigned an LTS score based on posted speed limit, number of travel lanes, the type of bikeway provided, and other factors. Low-stress facilities would be considered by up to 60% of the general population a viable option for biking. Bicycle LTS in the study corridor was evaluated using methodology developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute. The objective is to provide a connected network of low-stress bicycle facilities within the study corridor.
Transit Mode Share
Transit mode share measures the degree that system and service improvements in transit service induce more ridership. The methodologies described in TCRP-118 the Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide were used to determine the degree of mode shift to transit resulting from proposed service and system transit improvements.
Vehicle Miles Traveled VMT
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is calculated by multiplying the number of trips and the average segment lengths of a given trip. California’s Senate Bill (SB) 743 declares VMT the operative metric used to assess transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Statewide mandatory implementation of SB 743’s provisions will occur on July 1, 2020. VMT is a measure of both transportation and land use efficiency given that shorter trips or trips not requiring an automobile will result is less VMT.
Reliable Mobility
Multimodal Service Quality
Baseline service quality in the SR 29 corridor was empirically based using travel time data sets from INRIX and the National Performance Monitoring Research Data Set (NPMRDS). The Federal National Performance Rule Congestion Threshold performance measure was used to determine the performance of roadway segments within the study corridor: Uncongested (>= 60 % of free-flow) vs. Congested (< 60% of free-flow).
To forecast corridor performance a VISSIM micro-simulation model was developed to determine corridor-wide person throughput, vehicle throughput, vehicle miles of travel and travel time, travel time index (TTI), and delay.
Intersection operations were also quantified using the SR 29 micro-simulation model through the determination of Level of Service (LOS) at key intersections. LOS is a qualitative metric that describes the experience of motorists. Intersections and approaches are assigned scores from “A” through “F” with A being free-flowing traffic with little to no congestion and F being highly congested. LOS criteria are established to determine whether a given roadway facility is providing the desired quality of service. The methodologies used to determine LOS (i.e. delay, speed, density) were based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition. Caltrans operating standards have been applied that identify the cusp between LOS C and D as the acceptable threshold for SR 29.
586
26 | PLANNING GUIDANCE AND METRICS
Multimodal Service Reliability
Travel time reliability is defined as the variation in travel time for the same trip from day to day (“same trip” implies a trip made with the same purpose, from the same origin, to the same destination, at the same time of the day, using the same mode, and by the same route). If variability is large, the travel time is considered to be unreliable, because it is difficult to generate consistent and accurate estimates for it.
If there is little or no variation in the travel time for the same trip, the travel time is considered to be reliable.
Two sources of the travel time data were used for the SR 29 CMCP, a combination of INRIX data (for passenger vehicles and trucks combined) and NPMRDS data. These data were used to establish baseline passenger car and freight travel time reliability for the SR 29 CMCP. The following performance metrics for passenger vehicles were generated:
Buffer time
Buffer time index
Both the national rule’s definition of reliability (based on 80th percentile speed) and the HCM definition of reliability (based on 95th percentile speed) were applied.
To estimate the change in reliability (buffer time only) as a result of the SR 29 CMCP improvement concepts, the change of travel time reliability was holistically projected for each SR 29 CMCP alternative under future year conditions. The relative change in the Travel Time Index (TTI) between baseline and future was applied to adjust the empirically based NPMRDS baseline estimate of buffer time. This assumes that the effect of construction, weather, and incidents reflected in the most recent 12 months of NPMRDS data is reasonably reflective of the frequency of like events in the future.
Health and Safety
Pedestrian and Bicycle Mode Share
To estimate the induced demand associated with the bicycle improvements proposed in the study corridor, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 552 methodology provided in the Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle Facilities was utilized. The analysis quantifies the induced demand mode shift (induced demand) associated with the proposed improvements, and monetizes the annualized mobility, health, recreation and decreased auto use benefits provided by the projected mode shift at high, moderate and low estimates. The estimated mode shift is then converted to VMT reduction by applying an average trip length estimate.
Design and Speed Suitability (i.e., Collision Reduction Potential of Infrastructure Improvements) Based on the contributing factors from the baseline collision hot-spot assessment, Parts B and D of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 2010 were applied to identify location-specific and corridor-wide countermeasures. At intersections, Part C of the HSM was applied to estimate the potential safety 587
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 27 performance and crash reduction potential of identified infrastructure design treatments. Estimated collision reductions are then monetized using societal cost estimates from the Caltrans 2018 Economic Parameters.
Environmental Stewardship
Vehicle Emissions (Criteria Health-Based Pollutants and Climate Change Pollutants) Corridor and intersection-specific on-road mobile sources of health-based criteria pollutants (including VOC, NOx, and PM10) and climate change pollutants (greenhouse gases) were estimated using the California Transportation Commission (CTC) Emissions Analyzer which is based on modified base emission rates consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions model EMFAC.
Adaptation
A qualitative assessment of the degree of vulnerability and sustainability of future transportation investments in the SR 29 corridor as well as potential benefits associated with evacuation responses to climate change related events such as flood and wildfire was determined using the Caltrans Vulnerability Mapping web-based resources.
Social Equity
Equitable Distribution of Benefits and Impacts
A qualitative assessment of the distribution of benefits (i.e., access to and utilization of) and impacts (construction, environmental, and right-of-way impacts) of the proposed future transportation investments in the SR 29 corridor relative to advantaged and disadvantaged communities was determined through application of Cal-environ web-based mapping resources.
Robust Economy
Return on Investment
To provide an indication of the projected return on investment of the proposed investment in the SR 29 corridor, a holistic 20-year life cycle benefit-cost (B/C) metric is computed based on the net present value (i.e. life cycle duration using a discount rate of four percent) incorporating the following five measures of effectiveness:
Safety Benefit (predicted collision reduction)
Health Benefit (mode shift to active transportation)
Reduced Vehicle Operating Cost Benefit (VMT reductions) Delay and Buffer Time Reduction Benefit (delay and buffer time savings) Vehicle Emission Reduction Benefit (VMT and vehicular operations i.e., delay reductions) Operations and Maintenance Costs
Initial Capital Costs
Monetized benefits were based on 2016 / 2018 societal cost parameters developed by Caltrans.
Improvement costs (capital and operations and maintenance) used a format based on Caltrans preparation guidelines for developing project planning cost options. 588
28 | PLANNING GUIDANCE AND METRICS
The following assessments, though qualitative, relate to the robust economy objective given the importance of ensuring and protecting the integrity and sustainability of the proposed SR 29 corridor investment.
Economic Development
An economic assessment using IMPLAN economic multipliers of the short- and long-term economic impacts of the proposed investments in the SR 29 corridor on Gross Regional Product, job creation and income.
Plan/Policy Consistency
A qualitative assessment of the degree that the proposed investments in the SR 29 corridor are politically and institutionally feasible and implementable.
Emerging Technologies
A qualitative assessment of the degree that the proposed investments in the SR 29 corridor are compatible with emerging transportation technologies and service trends.
Data Collection/Retrieval
Performance measures require data. The following data sources were tapped to collect/retrieve data needed to operationalize the performance measures used for the SR 29 CMCP.
Longitudinal Employment-Housing Dynamic (LEHD) Origin-Destination Data Longitudinal Employer–Household Dynamics (LEHD) data is primarily based on Unemployment Insurance (UI) earnings data and the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), and censuses and surveys. Firm and worker information are combined to create job level quarterly earnings history data, data on where workers live and work, and data on firm characteristics, such as industry. The most recent available LEHD data (2017) was utilized.
Streetlight Data Origin-Destination Data
Streetlight Data is cell data including navigation-GPS and other location-based data from connected cars, trucks, and location apps collected on an “opt-in” basis. Streetlight also uses publicly available Census, traffic counts, and points of interest data. This sample-based data is expanded, tracked and mapped using proprietary algorithms to determine travel characteristics including origins-destinations by trip purpose. A full year of Streetlight data for calendar year 2018 was acquired by NVTA for regional planning purposes.
National Performance Monitoring Research Data Set (Speed Data) Per the National Performance Management Measures Final Rule, the preferred data for complying with the National Highway Performance Program is NPMRDS from FHWA. The NPMRDS provides average speed data (five-minute averaging time) for federally defined roadway segments designated as part of the National Highway System (NHS) including SR 29.
Two and half years of NPMRDS speed data was retrieved (1/1/2017 to 7/31/2019). Data was filtered to isolate average weekday conditions (Tuesday-Thursday AM/PM peak periods) for passenger vehicles and heavy-duty truck vehicles separately. To identify the AM/PM peak hour, the peak periods between 589
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 29 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM and 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM were analyzed to identify the most congested continuous 60-minute span for both passenger vehicles and trucks.
After filtering the data to isolate average peak hour conditions, a total of 1,048,575 individual data records were processed to yield 1,195 averaged observations for 278 segments (reflecting both directions of travel) for both passenger vehicles and heavy-duty trucks respectively. The only data cleansing applied was to remove extreme high-speed outliers (e.g., 90+ mph) from the free flow speed, congestion and reliability calculations. All data was processed and summarized based on the NPMRDS segmentation.
INRIX Data (Speed Data)
Through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), NVTA accessed one-year of INRIX speed data (7/1/2018 to 6/30/2019). This data was processed similarly to the NPMRDS data. INRIX collects data streams from local transport authorities, sensors on road networks, fleet vehicles such as delivery vans, long haul trucks and taxis. It includes data for additional roadways other than the NHS. This allowed local parallel facilities to SR 29 to be analyzed.
Traffic Counts
AM/PM peak hour intersection turn movement counts utilized in SR 29 CMCP were a combination of existing counts sourced from recent planning studies including: SR 29 Gateway Corridor Plan (1 intersection); Imola Avenue Complete Streets (9 intersections); Soscol Junction PA-ED Traffic Analysis (7 intersections); and Watson Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (21 intersections). New traffic counts were performed in November 2019 specifically to update or augment the existing traffic count data. These include:
SR 221 -- Napa Valley Corporate Way, Napa, CA
SR 29-- N Kelly Rd, Napa, CA Syar Way -- Kaiser Rd, Napa, CA Napa Valley Corporate Dr -- Kaiser Rd, Napa, CA
Enterprise Way -- Kaiser Rd, Napa, CA
SR 221 -- Kaiser Rd, Napa, CA
Napa Valley Corporate Dr -- Napa Valley Corporate Way, Napa, CA Napa Valley Corporate Dr -- Bordeaux Way, Napa, CA
Devlin Rd -- Soscol Ferry Rd, Napa, CA
Stanly Ln -- SR 12, Napa, CA
Stanly Ln -- Golden Gate Dr, Napa, CA
Kelly Rd -- SR 12, Napa, CA
Devlin Rd -- S Kelly Rd, Napa, CA
Devlin Rd -- Tower Rd, Napa, CA
Airport Blvd -- Devlin Rd, Napa, CA
590
30 | PLANNING GUIDANCE AND METRICS
The source of the SR 29 daily segment counts was the NVTA 2018 Travel Behavior Study. These counts were collected in November/December 2018.
Transit Ridership Data
Transit ridership data for 2019 was provided by NVTA.
SWITRS and TIMS Collision Data
Collision data was obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for the years between 2014 and 2018. Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data was also accessed for the same period to cross reference the injury and fatality collision data in SWITRS.
Infrastructure Costs
Planning-level costs for infrastructure recommendations were obtained from existing planning studies and regional transportation planning documents. Where costs were unavailable through these sources, costs were estimated based on industry standard planning level procedures.
Societal Costs
Societal cost data were sourced from the 2018 Economic Parameters published by Caltrans. These societal costs are consistent with parameters resident in the Caltrans benefit-cost analysis tool Cal-BC.
On-line Mapping Resources
On-line mapping tools such as Climate Change Vulnerability (Caltrans District 4), LEHD, and CalEnviroScreen 3.0 were utilized to inform examinations for adaptation, travel pattern and environmental justice respectively.
Analysis Tool Development
Solano Napa Activity Based Model
The Solano-Napa Activity-Based Model (SNABM) is an analysis tool that gives NVTA the capability to generate technical information pertinent to the understanding of travel behavior and transportation network performance within the SR 29 study corridor boundary. This information is critical to the development, updating and monitoring of the NVTA’s transportation capital improvement program, analysis of specific transportation projects and programs, as well as the General Plan land use and transportation strategies and policies of its member agencies including the cities of American Canyon and Napa and the County of Napa. The SNABM model yields the future volume sets (i.e., roadway segment volumes and intersection turn movements) to inform operational analyses that determine whether a given road segment or intersection will operate acceptably in the future.
The most recent version of the SNABM model including a 2015 Baseline and 2040 out-year was utilized for the SR 29 CMCP. Though the SNABM model has been regionally validated/calibrated, a sub-area validation analysis was performed to better ensure that the SNABM model would generate reasonable forecasts within the study corridor sub-area. The following tasks were performed as part of the sub-area validation:
591
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 31 Approximately 40 intersection turn movement counts within the SR 29 study corridor boundary were summed to generate AM and PM peak hour segment volume sets for validation purposes;
For segments not emulating observed counts, select link was performed to identify the TAZs that contribute trips on the link; the peak hour origin-destination pairs were then incrementally adjusted in relative proportion to the link error and the assignment step re-run. This procedure modifies the AM/PM peak hour factors to allow the daily origin-destination table to better emulate peak hour conditions.
% Root Mean Square Error (%RMSE) was performed for the AM and PM peak hour assignments respectively. Validation criteria was %RMSE of 40% or less overall.
Based on the sub-area validation results in Table 2, the SNABM model was determined to be suitable for generating reasonable travel forecasts within the SR 29 study corridor. A detailed description of the SNABM sub-area validation analysis is provided in Appendix A.
Table 2: SNABM Sub-Area Validation Results
%RMSE AM PH PM PH
Original SNABM Subarea 57.3% 49.2%
After Subarea Validation 41.5% 34.9%
A 2015 baseline model run and two travel forecast scenarios were developed: 1) a 2040 Programmed Forecast that reflected all currently programmed projects (i.e., considered the future baseline); and, 2) SR 29 CMCP Planned Forecast which included all applicable SR 29 CMCP roadway improvements. Coding of network attributes (lane capacity, free flow speed, etc.) for new roadways was based on accepted network coding conventions used by NVTA.
The SNABM model projects approximately 20% growth in AM/PM peak hour traffic levels by 2040. This equates to slightly less than a one percent annual average growth rate over the planning horizon of the plan.
All raw model volumes were processed by applying the AM and PM peak hour model growth to ground counts to essentially “grow” the counts to reflect future year conditions and circulation changes.
SR 29 VISSIM Micro-simulation Model
VISSIM microsimulation software was developed to simulate SR 29 corridor operations under both baseline and future year conditions. The model network was built by amalgamating VISSIM networks completed for other planning studies (SR 29 Gateway Plan and Watson Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis) and new coding to complete the remaining applicable SR 29 CMCP study corridor network. Figure 3 displays the sources by location used to develop the corridor network.
The SR 29 micro-simulation model was validated to applicable criteria established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Software using INRIX and NPMRDS travel time data. The SR 29 microsimulation model was used to analyze the operational performance using volume sets generated from the 2040 Programmed and SR 29 CMCP travel forecasts.
All VISSIM microsimulation runs were based on a minimum 10-minute seeding time, 60-minute analysis time (divided into four 15-minue intervals), and reflect an average of 5 multiple runs. The development of the SR 29 microsimulation model is described in greater detail in Appendix B. 592
NewellDr Corcoran
Borges
Broadway
Mini
AirparkRd
American
CanyonRd
Severus
WetlandsEdge dR
Elli tt o Dr
Meadows
Sonoma
G
ateway
ChaucerLn
AirportRd
RioDelMar
EchoSummit
Sosco
lFerry
Rd
oDndal sonWay
SKelly dR
Paol Loop i Rd
Fairgrounds
JackLondon
Falcon
Evelyn
Roleen
Griffin
Green Island Rd
WAmerican
CanyonRd
AirportBlvd DevlinRd
Lo
s
AltosDr NKellyRd
BasaltRd
EucalyptusDr soS oc lCreekRd
N
AirportRd
WatsonLn
Techno
l
ogy
Way ·|þ}221
·|þ}29
·|þ}12
·|þ}37
·|þ}29
City of Vallejo
City of American Canyon
City of Napa
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
Project No.
Revision No.
-
11187559
Date 7/11/2019
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Grid: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Paper Size ANSI B
o
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\11187559_Map Set.aprx Data source: World Imagery: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: bnamsaly Print date: 11 Jul 2019 - 09:49
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
CMCP Added Network
Watson Ranch SP Network
2014 Gateway Network
City Limits
Local Streets
Study Area
Legend
FIGURE 3
MICROSIMULATION MODEL
NETWORK DEVELOPMENT
593
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 33 3 - Public Outreach
A robust and targeted public outreach program was created to augment the prior Gateway Plan outreach effort and to gauge public acceptance of specific improvement options.
Outreach efforts included both traditional and nontraditional venues for gathering community input.
These outreach efforts, starting with the Community
Workshops, are more fully described in the following
sections. Clearly, as will be evident through the process, the input received through these various channels helped
inform and guide the analysis and the SR 29 corridor
solutions that ultimately lead to the creation of the SR 29 CMCP, itself.
Community Workshops
Two public workshops were held during the course of the plan’s development on November 12, 2019 and on April 23, 2020. Both were supplemented with on-line virtual
workshops which emulated all materials presented at the traditional workshops. This allowed the results of both workshops to be appropriately merged and summarized
together. Presentation materials including all
input/responses from the public workshops are provided in Appendix C.
Workshop #1
A public workshop was held on November 12, 2019 to
introduce the project to the public, inform the public how to stay actively engaged during its development; and
gather feedback from the community on the potential
solutions under consideration. Of the 31 attendees, seven were City of American Canyon staff and elected officials and Caltrans staff.
Building on prior community outreach conducted for the
SR 29 Gateway Plan, this workshop presented potential
improvement concepts for the corridor and asked
attendees to share their thoughts and preferences.
594
34 | PUBLIC OUTREACH
Attendees were also asked a series of polling questions about their current experiences on the corridor and their priorities for improvements.
Most respondents reported that driving was their most
frequent mode traveled on the SR 29 corridor. Few people said they walk or bicycle on the corridor currently, citing concerns about safety and a lack of dedicated paths.
Transit on the corridor is not commonly used by attendees, due to concerns about travel time.
Workshop attendees rated improving safety for people
walking and driving as their highest priority for the corridor, followed by improving safety for transit and then people bicycling. Most that choose not to walk cited safety concerns or lack of designated paths.
Similarly, the reason most often cited for not biking was fear for safety at 52.38%, followed by lack of
paths/connections at 28.57%.
Reducing vehicle congestion and improving signal timing were also identified as top priorities, in addition to
improved connectivity for bicyclists.
Potential solutions rated as top priorities by attendees include:
Increase parallel roadway capacity
Multimodal improvements on SR 29 between SR 37
and Soscol Junction
Intersection improvements on SR 29 at Airport Drive
and at Carneros Highway
Transit frequency improvements on SR 29 including
queue jumps or part-time use of shoulder for transit
vehicles
A complete summary of Workshop #1 is provided in
Appendix D.
Workshop #2
The second public workshop was held on April 23, 2020 to present the draft SR 29 CMCP including the proposed multimodal improvements to the community for comment. In recognition of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Shelter-at-Home order for the Napa County, and the rest of the Bay Area, this workshop was held entirely virtually. The April workshop was performed remotely via webinar to the public. The workshop was attended by members of the general public as well as City of American Canyon staff and elected officials and Caltrans staff. A complete summary of Workshop #2 is provided in Appendix D.
595
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 35 Staff Working Group
A staff working group was convened to guide development of this Plan and ensure consistency with the goals and complementary planning efforts of partner agencies in the region. Members included representatives from the following agencies:
Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)
City of Napa
City of American Canyon
Napa County
Caltrans District 4
Each of these agencies were a key partner in implementing the recommendations in this Plan. The group met a total of nine times throughout the plan’s development (monthly) to provide guidance and oversight on the process and review draft deliverables and documents at key milestones.
Media
Various forms of social media were used for posting announcements of outreach events including Facebook, Twitter and Next Door. Public announcements of outreach events were also made on various news and radio media outlets including the American Canyon Eagle, the Napa Valley Register and KVON Wine Country Radio station.
A mailing list of interested community members was also developed to share project updates and information about outreach opportunities. More than 160 people provided their email address for this list.
Project partners and stakeholders were also encouraged to use their existing social media platforms to share information about the project and outreach opportunities. 596
36 | PUBLIC OUTREACH
Project Logo Branding and Project Information Cards
To distinguish the SR 29 CMCP planning effort from other on-going planning activities by NVTA and partnering agencies a Project Logo was developed. This branding was placed on all project deliverables and products.
In addition, a Project Information Card was also developed to encourage the use of online engagement by the public particularly the use of the interactive mapping tool on the project website (see below). The Project Information Card was printed in both English and Spanish (back-to-back) and provided te SR 29 project website URL.
Online Engagement
To support and supplement public engagement activities, a project website was developed, available at www.sr29corridorplan.com.
The website was used to share information about outreach events, host online versions of the community workshops, and gather feedback on draft project deliverables.
Over the course of the project study period, the website was visited 259 times by 198 unique website visitors. One survey was completed through the virtual workshop, and ten comments were left through the comment form available on the site. Most input was received through the interactive mapping tool described below.
597
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 37 Interactive Mapping Tool
To supplement in-person engagement and gather additional feedback, an online interactive mapping tool was developed through the engagement platform Social Pinpoint. The mapping tool was made available on the project website beginning in early November 2019 and remained “live” through March 2020.
Typically, on-line mapping tools are used to solicit public input on where issues and needs are located by allowing geo-referenced pin-drops and comments to be placed on a map. However, given that extensive outreach to identify existing needs and issues had already been accomplished as part of previous planning efforts, the SR 29 CMCP outreach effort pivoted from earlier efforts to solicit more specific public input on candidate improvement concepts identified by these efforts. This entailed specifically tailoring the on-line mapping tool to show candidate improvement concepts (shown as separate map layers the user could toggle on or off) and provide input on whether they could support the improvement concept and why via a dialogue comment box. This approach allowed the SR 29 CMCP to leverage the previously gathered input on existing conditions and present potential corridor improvement concepts to the public.
The mapping tool, offered in over
70 languages including English and
Spanish, presented graphical
renditions of candidate corridor
improvements and allowed the
community to comment on the
various options. Users were also
able to leave location-specific
comments on needs and issues.
Between November 2019 and March 2020, the
website was visited 1,451 times by 550 unique
users. Seventeen general comments were left
and 186 targeted survey responses on the
various improvement concepts were provided
by the public.
Public input on the various improvement
concepts examined as part of the SR 29 CMCP
are summarized in the Corridor Solutions
section of the plan. This input served to
facilitate along with the technical analyses the
ultimate selection of improvements to include
in the SR 29 preferred multimodal package of
improvements.
598
38 | BASELINE CONDITIONS
4 - Baseline Conditions
Regional Context
As described in the Gateway Plan and Vision 2040, SR 29 is an essential north-south connection within the North Bay’s transportation network, providing connections to significant east-west routes, including SR 12 and secondary roadways, and SR 121 and SR 221 to the north. Many commuters travel on SR 29 from affordable housing in Solano County to jobs in Napa or Sonoma Counties, or from the Napa Valley to jobs in the greater Bay Area. On weekends and during summer and harvest months, the corridor also plays a significant role in bringing tourists to the Napa Valley wine region.
By 2040, the nine-county Bay Area region is projected to have a total of approximately 4.5 million jobs and 3.4 million housing units, or an additional 1.1 million jobs and 660,000 housing units from 2010 levels.
The region’s population is expected to grow to 9.3 million in 2040, as indicated by economic and demographic trends, housing production, and the Bay Area’s unique role in the national and state economies. Within the study area, an additional 30,000 jobs and 10,000 housing units are projected.
As shown in Figure 4 (heat map of existing employment concentrations), SR 29 is also an important corridor for commercial activity and residential access, drawing in commuters from the rest of the region.
Figure 4: Employment Concentrations Served by the SR 29 Corridor N.T.S.
599
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 39 Figure 5 shows the concentration of residents in the study area. Figure 6 shows the concentration of total job locations in the study area. As shown in these figures, significant residential concentrations are found along the study corridor, with equally significant job opportunities. However, as shown in later figures, significant imbalance exists between residential areas and local job opportunities, most significantly in the City of American Canyon, generating a large amount of intercity commute travel along this lifeline corridor between Napa and Solano counties. Within the City of American Canyon itself, job opportunities are concentrated at the northern end of the City, with residential concentrations at the southern end. Lacking parallel facilities to accommodate local commutes within the City, local traffic shares SR 29 with regional traffic even for short trips.
Plan Bay Area and Priority Development Areas
Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg, 2008), also known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, seeks to implement the statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets set forth by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) by reducing emissions from passenger vehicle. SB 375 added a new element to each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the regional planning agencies for this MPO region, recently prepared Plan Bay Area 2040, which includes the SCS required per SB 375. The SR 29 CMCP is consistent with NVTA’s Countywide Transportation Plan, which is consistent Plan Bay Area 2040.
The current Plan Bay Area 20401
projects growth in households and jobs through year 2040 and identifies strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks through land use and transportation planning efforts. These strategies plan for future growth in a way that encourages compact development with a broad array of housing types and transportation choices. To accommodate the Bay Area’s projected growth while meeting environmental sustainability goals, Plan Bay Area focuses on directing development into Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are locally identified nodes of development (such as a corridor, a downtown, or an area around a transit station) that have substantial opportunity for infill housing that supports increased walkability and transit usage.
Region-wide, PDAs are proposed to absorb about 80 percent of new housing and 66 percent of new jobs on about five percent of the total regional land area. This pattern holds true for the one PDA identified in the SR 29 Corridor Planning Area, in American Canyon. In this city, approximately 81 percent of new housing and 67 percent of new jobs are projected to be located in the PDA. In Napa County, another PDA has been identified in Downtown Napa/Soscol Corridor, north and east of the SR 29 study corridor. In Vallejo, the Waterfront and Downtown PDA is located southwest of the SR 29 study corridor.
1 The preparation of the successor to Plan Bay Area 2040, Plan Bay Area 2050, is currently underway. 600
Home Locations
1 - 76
76 - 151
151 - 226
226 - 301
301 - 377
377 - 452
452 - 527
527 - 602
677 - 752
Basemap
Highways
Napa County Roadways
Solano County Roadways
Napa County City Limits
American Canyon
Napa
Solano County City Boundaries
Vallejo
Legend
Data Disclaimer
The size of pionts shown are based on the
total number of workers that live in the area.
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\LEHD-OTM Flows.qgs Data Source:
Created By: Rosanna Southern
Document Path: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working \LEHD-OTM Flows.qgs
Map Projection: Mercator Auxillary Sphere Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984 Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxillary 1 0 1 2 3 4 mi Paper Size ANSI
FIGURE 5
03/13/2020
-
11187559
Date.
Revision No.
Project No.
RESIDENT LOCATIONS AND
CONCENTRATION (LEHD)
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
601
Work Locations
1 - 76
76 - 151
151 - 226
226 - 301
301 - 377
377 - 452
452 - 527
527 - 602
602 - 677
677 - 752
Basemap
Highways
Napa County Roadways
Solano County Roadways
Napa County City Limits
American Canyon
Napa
Solano County City Boundaries
Vallejo
Legend
Data Disclaimer
The size of pionts shown are based on the
total number of employees.
Data Source:
Created By: Rosanna Southern
Document Path: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working \LEHD-OTM Flows.qgs
Map Projection: Mercator Auxillary Sphere Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984 Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxillary 1 0 1 2 3 4 mi Paper Size ANSI
03/13/2020
-
11187559
Date.
Revision No.
Project No.
FIGURE 6
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
RESIDENT LOCATIONS AND
CONCENTRATION (LEHD)
602
42 | BASELINE CONDITIONS
City of American Canyon
SR 29 is the only continuous north-south roadway through the City of American Canyon, both providing access to homes and local businesses but also acting as a substantial barrier to east-west local travel through the city. In American Canyon, SR 29 is lined with retail commercial uses and other destinations that serve residents and visitors. Local connections to these businesses are limited, and SR 29 often provides the only access. Surrounding urban areas have few north-south routes, so SR 29 serves many local trips. Residential development abuts the roadway on both sides at the southern end of the city, though it is buffered by landscaping. On the east side, the railroad also separates adjacent development from the highway.
Local- and community-serving commercial uses start just south of the intersection of SR 29 and American Canyon Road, and are the predominant land use between there and Napa Junction Road. Uses are auto-oriented, typically single story, and set back from the highway with surface parking and some landscaping. North of Napa Junction Road, land uses transition to light industrial on larger parcels, interspersed with vacant and agricultural land.
Nearly the entire SR 29 corridor that runs through American Canyon has been designated as a PDA by ABAG and MTC. ABAG/MTC give priority to PDAs when issuing technical assistance and capital grants, in exchange for a community’s commitment to compact growth and alternative modes within PDAs. The City intends to complete a Specific Plan for the PDA within the next several years.
Most of the PDA has a Community Commercial and Commercial Neighborhood designation under American Canyon’s General Plan. These designations allow for a range of retail, office, personal services, and other commercial uses; these designations also allow 50 percent of a site to be used for multi-family residential development.
Unincorporated County of Napa
Immediately north of the American Canyon city limits (and within American Canyon just north of Napa Junction Road), land uses adjacent to SR 29 consist primarily of business and light industrial parks. Many are to the west, clustered near the Napa County Airport, and support the wine industry. Most industrial parcels south of South Kelly Road connect directly to the highway, with intermittent access to roads shared among multiple parcels. This is not the case north of South Kelly Road. Business parks along this corridor typically exhibit a high level of design—buildings are separated from the highway with landscaping, and properties within the Business/Industrial Park portion of the Airport Area Specific Plan are subject to design review with regards to site planning, landscaping, signage, off-street parking, noise control, and outdoor storage facilities.
North of the industrial area, land uses adjacent to the highway are almost entirely rural, comprised of open space (wetlands surrounding the Napa River) and agricultural uses.
Within unincorporated Napa County, parcels abutting SR 29 are generally designated either as Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space or Industrial by the County’s General Plan. Urban uses are not permitted on land designated as Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space; however County Policy AG/LU-40 says that “Hess Vineyard area” (just north of American Canyon and east of SR 29) is to be “considered for re-designation to an Industrial designation if [the] Newell [Drive extension] is ever extended north of Green Island Road.” However, this is unlikely to occur, as a 2008 voter initiative by the City of American Canyon rerouted Newell [Drive] to connect to SR 29 at Green Island Road specifically in order to preserve the Hess Vineyard.
603
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 43 While most of the corridor is designed for agricultural or industrial uses, exceptions exist: just north and east of the Napa River crossing where the “Napa Pipe” site is re-designated for multi-family with some retail/commercial uses, and annexed to the City of Napa; and south of SR 29 and just east of the Napa River, where land designated as Public-Institutional includes the Napa County Airport and allows for public and quasi-public uses, but also limited commercial uses.
Another asset of this area is the Grape Crusher statue, located just west of the SR 29/Highway 221 intersection. A tourist attraction and significant landmark, the statue helps to signify entrance to the Napa Valley.
City of Napa
While SR 29 is a major route through the city, its design as a grade-separated freeway means that it does not interface directly with adjacent land uses, which are a mix of residential, commercial, office, and institutional developments, and are separated from the highway by landscaping and sound walls.
Landscape improvements remain possible, along with gateway identity features at interchanges.
Where SR 29 passes alongside urban uses in the City of Napa, a freeway configuration limits access and land use designations vary. Parcels with commercial designations tend to surround freeway interchanges, while other frontages along the freeway include parcels with Corporate Park, multi-family residential, single-family residential and other designations.
Observed Travel Patterns
Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Database (LEHD) Data As shown in Table 3 based on the LEHD journey to work data shows over 6,000 residents of the Cities of Napa, American Canyon and Vallejo commute to their jobs outside their home-city to one of the other two neighboring cities. The vast majority of these trips must traverse SR 29 within the study corridor.
Approximately 25,000 residents live and work in their respective jurisdictions. This journey to work origin-destination information is also graphically shown in Figure 7.
Table 3: LEHD Journey to Work Origin-Destination Pairs
Home Location
Work Destination
Napa
American
Canyon Vallejo Other Total
Napa 12,437 470 787 20,063 39,757
American Canyon 1,288 432 928 7,251 9,899
Vallejo 2,224 589 8,348 45,308 56,469
Looking beyond the three cities, Figure 8 shows the total number of in-coming, intra-, and out-going commuters for the cities of Napa, American Canyon and Vallejo. This data indicates that over 11,000 additional commuters either commute to or from the City of American Canyon to/from places other than the City of Napa or Vallejo. Many of these commuters must traverse a portion of SR 29. Nearly 50,000 commuters do the same from the City of Napa. Over 70,000 commuters either commute to or from the City of Vallejo – many of which are either coming or going to the Bay Area or Sacramento Valley. 604
American Canyon Origin
Home-Based-Work Destinations
Vallejo Origin
Home-Based-Work Destinations
Napa Origin
Home-Based-Work Destinations
Basemap
Highways
Napa County Roadways
Solano County Roadways
American Canyon
Napa
Vallejo
Legend
N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\LEHD-OTM Flows.qgs Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics Data (2017). Washington, DC. Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program, accessed on 03/13/2020 at https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/#lodes. LODES 7.4.
Created By: Rosanna Southern
Document Path: N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\LEHD-OTM Flows.qgs
Map Projection: Mercator Auxillary Sphere Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984 Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxillary Sphere 1 0 1 2 3 4 mi Paper Size ANSI A
05/12/2020
-
11187559
Date.
Revision No.
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Project No.
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
EMPLOYMENT ORIGINSDESTINATIONS (LEHD) FIGURE 7
605
N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\Inflow-Outflow LEHD.qgz FIGURE 8
05/12/2020
11187559
Date.
Revision No.
Project No.
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics Data (2017). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program, accessed on 03/13/2020 at https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/#lodes. LODES 7.4 Created By: rsouthern
Document Path: N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\Inflow-Outflow LEHD.qgz
Map Projection: Mercator Auxillary Sphere Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984 Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxillary Sphere 1 0 1 2 3 4 mi Paper Size ANSI A
2 Napa & Solana County Roadways
City Boundaries
American Canyon
Napa
Vallejo
Work Trips
Inbound Jobs (Work here)
Outbound Jobs (Live here)
Internal Jobs (Live and Work Here)
Legend
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
WORKER INFLOW / OUTFLOW
(LEHD)
606
46 | BASELINE CONDITIONS
Streetlight Data
LEHD data only provided journey to work origin-destination pairs. Based on Streetlight Data which captures all trip types (versus just journey to work trips), annually, an average of 64% of the traffic that use SR 29 is traveling between destinations located in the cities of Napa and American Canyon. During weekdays this percentage is 66% while on weekends it drops to 61% due to the influx of regional traffic.
Countywide, 70% of trips stay within Napa County while 30% travel from or to areas outside Napa County. Countywide, 40% of total trips are intra-city trips in the City of Napa. Further, 63% of trips are less the 5 miles in length. These are trips that are most conducive for non-motorized travel such biking or walking.
Traffic Counts
On a typical weekday, SR 29, north of American Canyon Road, carries 24,000 vehicles travel northbound and 25,000 vehicles travel southbound daily. On SR 29 at the Napa/Solano County Line 19,000 vehicles travel both northbound and southbound daily. At the Napa/Lake County Line 4,500 vehicles travel northbound and 4,000 vehicles southbound on SR 29. These daily volumes do not significantly change during weekends. Existing turn movement counts by source are shown in Figure 9. 607
5 2
4 6
10 7
8 9
3 Airport Blvd
S Kelly Rd Devlin Rd
Kelly
N Rd
Devlin Rd
Soscol Ferry Rd
Soscol Creek Rd
Tower Rd Devlin Rd
Green Island Rd Watson Ln
Eucalyptus Dr
Rio
Del
Mar S Napa Junction Rd
Donaldson Wy Holcomb Ln
Crawford Wy American Canyon American Canyon
Newell Dr
San Francisco
Bay Trail
1 Cameros Hwy
LEGEND:
- AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
- PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
XX
(XX)
Cameros Hwy SR 29
Soscol Ferry Rd SR 12 / SR 221Airport Rd Devlin Rd
Airport Blvd SR 29 / SR 12
Filename: N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\Digital_Design\Traffic Graphics\11187559_TG001.dwg Plot Date: 18 March 2020 - 1:18 PM Date
Report No.
Project No. 11187559
001
March 2020
Source:
FIGURE 9
N
SR 12
S. Kelly Rd
S. Napa Junction Rd SR 29S. Kelly Rd SR 29
Eucalyptus Dr SR 29
American Canyon RdSR 29
Rio Del Mar SR 29
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
EXISTING TURNING MOVEMENTS
608
48 | BASELINE CONDITIONS
Roadway Operations
Key Intersections
Turn movement counts for approximately 40 intersections were input into the SR 29 microsimulation model for baseline validation purposes. Of the 40 intersections, ten key intersections were selected for detailed operational analysis using microsimulation. As shown in Table 4 and Table 5 below, the following five intersections currently operate below established standards during either the AM or PM peak hours:
1) SR 29/Carneros Hwy (SR 121/12 West)
2) SR 29/SR 221/Soscol Ferry Rd
3) SR 29/Airport/SR 12
4) SR 12/Kelly Road
5) SR 29/American Canyon Road
Each of these intersections experience excessive delays which propagate congestion upstream of these critical nodes.
Table 4: Existing Conditions Level of Service (AM Peak Hour) Intersection
Control
Type1,2
AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Delay (sec) LOS
Vehicle
Throughput
Veh
Hrs of
Delay
(hrs)
Person
Throughput
Person
Hrs of
Delay
(hrs)
SR 29 & Carneros Hwy Signal 37.5 D 4,928 51.3 6,406 66.7 SR 29 & SR 221/Soscol Ferry
Rd
Signal 215.7 F 4,881 292.4 6,345 380.2
Airport Blvd/Devlin Rd Signal 19.2 B 1,329 7.1 1,728 9.2 SR 29 & Airport Blvd/SR 12 Signal 51.7 D 5,120 73.5 6,656 95.5 SR 12 & Kelly Rd Signal 130.1 F 3,374 121.9 4,386 158.5 SR 29 & S. Kelly Rd Signal 41.7 D 4,198 48.7 5,457 63.2 SR 29 & Eucalyptus Drive Signal 8.3 A 3,492 8.0 4,540 10.5 SR 29 & Rio Del Mar Signal 17.7 B 3,517 17.3 4,572 22.5 SR 29 & S. Napa Junction Rd Signal 41.8 D 3,663 42.6 4,762 55.3 SR 29 & American Canyon
Rd
Signal 45.3 D 4,019 50.5 5,225 65.7
609
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 49 Table 5: Existing Conditions Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) Intersection
Control
Type1,2
PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Delay (sec) LOS
Vehicle
Throughput
Veh
Hrs of
Delay
(hrs)
Person
Throughput
Person
Hrs of
Delay
(hrs)
SR 29 & Carneros Hwy Signal 105.1 F 5,389 157.4 7,006 204.6 SR 29 & SR 221/Soscol Ferry
Rd
Signal 129.8 F 5,171 186.4 6,722 242.3
Airport Blvd/Devlin Rd Signal 18.8 B 1,736 9.1 2,257 11.8 SR 29 & Airport Blvd/SR 12 Signal 114.6 F 5,718 182.0 7,433 236.6 SR 12 & Kelly Rd Signal 21.2 C 3,317 19.5 4,312 25.3
SR 29 & S. Kelly Rd Signal 20.5 C 3,564 20.3 4,633 26.3 SR 29 & Eucalyptus Drive Signal 13.0 B 3,715 13.5 4,830 17.5 SR 29 & Rio Del Mar Signal 19.1 B 3,768 20.0 4,898 26.0 SR 29 & S. Napa Junction Rd Signal 51.2 D 4,028 57.3 5,236 74.5 SR 29 & American Canyon
Rd
Signal 63.1 E 4,584 80.3 5,959 104.4
Roadway Congestion (Speed-Based Analysis)
The Federal National Performance Rule Congestion Threshold performance measure was used to determine the performance of roadway segment operating conditions within the study corridor. Under the federal definition, a roadway is considered congested if peak period travel speeds fall below 60% of free flow speeds. This includes delays experienced at intersections. The analysis is based on NPMRDS and INRIX speed data collected over a two-year period and reflects the AM/PM peak hours. Given that free flow speed is a key variable for calculating this performance measure, free flow speed was empirically estimated for each roadway segment using NPMRDS data between the hours of midnight and 3 AM.
Congestion Threshold results are graphically presented in Figure 10, Figure 11, and Figure 12 respectively.
As shown, during the AM peak hour recurrent congestion occurs on SR 29 in the northbound direction between the junctures with SR 12 and Soscol Junction and between American Canyon Road and Napa Junction Road. During the PM peak hour, the majority of southbound SR 29 operates at less than 60% of free flow speed – from Soscol Ferry Road to American Canyon Road. During the Weekend peak hour, frequent congested conditions occur on SR 29 within the City of American Canyon as well as on SR 29 north of Airport Road/SR 12 through Soscol Junction.
610
N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\TTR+Congestion\TTR and Congestion.qgs FIGURE 10
05/13/2020
11187559
Date.
Revision No.
Project No.
Data Source: INRIX Analytics
Created By: rsouthern
Document Path: N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\TTR +Congestion\TTR and Congestion.qgs
Map Projection: Mercator Auxillary Sphere Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984 Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxillary Sphere 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi Paper Size ANSI A
2 AM Peak Congestion Conditions
Uncongested (Average Speed/Free-Flow Speed > 80%)
Moderately Congested (80% > Average Speed/Free-Flow Speed > 60%) Congested (Average Speed/Free-Flow Speed < 60%)
Highways
Local Roads
Cities
Legend
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
WEEKDAY CONGESTION
AM PEAK HOUR
611
N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\TTR+Congestion\TTR and Congestion.qgs FIGURE 11
05/13/2020
11187559
Date.
Revision No.
Project No.
Data Source: INRIX Analytics
Created By: rsouthern
Document Path: N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\TTR +Congestion\TTR and Congestion.qgs
Map Projection: Mercator Auxillary Sphere Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984 Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxillary Sphere 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi Paper Size ANSI A
2 PM Peak Congestion Conditions
Uncongested (Average Speed/Free-Flow Speed > 80%)
Moderately Congested (80% > Average Speed/Free-Flow Speed > 60%) Congested (Average Speed/Free-Flow Speed < 60%)
Highways
Local Roads
Cities
Legend
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
WEEKDAY CONGESTION
PM PEAK HOUR
612
N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\TTR+Congestion\TTR and Congestion.qgs FIGURE 12
05/13/2020
11187559
Date.
Revision No.
Project No.
Data Source: INRIX Analytics
Created By: rsouthern
Document Path: N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\TTR +Congestion\TTR and Congestion.qgs
Map Projection: Mercator Auxillary Sphere Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984 Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxillary Sphere 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi Paper Size ANSI A
2 Weekend Peak Congestion Conditions
Uncongested (Average Speed/Free-Flow Speed > 80%)
Moderately Congested (80% > Average Speed/Free-Flow Speed > 60%) Congested (Average Speed/Free-Flow Speed < 60%)
Highways
Local Roads
Cities
Legend
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
WEEKEND CONGESTION
PM PEAK HOUR
613
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 53 Travel Time Reliability Analysis
NPMRDS speed data was used for baseline travel time reliability analysis. The following performance metrics for passenger vehicles were generated:
Buffer time
Buffer time index
Federal definitions from the National Performance Management Measures Rule were used to define reliability. Both the national rule’s definition of reliability (based on 80th percentile speed) and the HCM definition of reliability (based on 95th percentile speed) were applied. Buffer Time represents the additional time a motorist needs to budget for to ensure they arrive at their destination at the expected time 95% of the time. Buffer Time Index (BTI) simply normalizes Buffer Time for distance and is expressed as a ratio or percentage (added percent of time required). A higher BTI indicates more time drivers need to budget for to drive the corridor as a typical drive time becomes less reliable. BTI equal to or greater than 0.5 indicates that a motorist will need to budget 50+ percent more time over the normal travel window (i.e., departing earlier) to ensure an on-time arrival 95 percent of the time (i.e., equates to allowing for one late arrival for every 30 trips). Table 6 displays the Buffer Time Index thresholds as they relate to reliability.
Table 6: Buffer Time Index Thresholds
Reliable Moderately Reliable Unreliable
BTIA < 0.25 BTIA 0.25 – < 0.5 BTIA > = 0.5
A Buffer Time Index – A measure of reliability, measures percentage of travel time devoted to being on time above average travel time.
Buffer time indices for weekday AM peak hour, weekday PM peak hour, and weekend PM peak hour are shown in Figure 13, Figure 14, and Figure 15 respectively. As shown, frequent service reliability issues occur predominantly during the weekday AM and PM peak commute hours and do not particularly mirror where congestion typically occurs. Although reliability issues are present during weekends – they are much more specific at the SR 29 junctures with American Canyon Road, Airport/SR 12 and Soscol Junction.
Figure 16 and Figure 17 show how motorists who use SR 29 in either direction respectively must compensate for both travel delay and buffer time. As shown, instead of a 13-minute drive to traverse 11.5 miles under non-congested conditions within the study corridor motorist must typically commit to over 30 minutes to reliably travel on SR 29 during peak hours. This also presents issues for on-time performance of transit service in the SR 29 corridor.
614
N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\TTR+Congestion\TTR and Congestion.qgs FIGURE 13
05/13/2020
11187559
Date.
Revision No.
Project No.
Data Source: INRIX Analytics
Created By: rsouthern
Document Path: N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\TTR +Congestion\TTR and Congestion.qgs
Map Projection: Mercator Auxillary Sphere Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984 Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxillary Sphere 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi Paper Size ANSI A
2 AM Peak Travel Time Reliability Conditions
Reliable (BTI<0.25)
Semi-Reliable (0.25<BTI<0.50)
Unreliable (BIT>0.50)
Highways
Local Roads
Cities
Legend
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
BUFFER TIME INDEX
WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR
615
N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\TTR+Congestion\TTR and Congestion.qgs FIGURE 14
05/13/2020
11187559
Date.
Revision No.
Project No.
Data Source: INRIX Analytics
Created By: rsouthern
Document Path: N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\TTR +Congestion\TTR and Congestion.qgs
Map Projection: Mercator Auxillary Sphere Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984 Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxillary Sphere 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi Paper Size ANSI A
2 PM Peak Travel Time Reliability Conditions
Reliable (BTI<0.25)
Semi-Reliable (0.25<BTI<0.50)
Unreliable (BIT>0.50)
Place Names
Highways
Local Roads
Cities
Legend
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
BUFFER TIME INDEX
WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR
616
N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\TTR+Congestion\TTR and Congestion.qgs FIGURE 15
05/13/2020
11187559
Date.
Revision No.
Project No.
Data Source: INRIX Analytics
Created By: rsouthern
Document Path: N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\TTR +Congestion\TTR and Congestion.qgs
Map Projection: Mercator Auxillary Sphere Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984 Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxillary Sphere 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 mi Paper Size ANSI A
2 Weekend Peak Travel Time Reliability Conditions
Reliable (BTI<0.25)
Semi-Reliable (0.25<BTI<0.50)
Unreliable (BIT>0.50)
Highways
Local Roads
Cities
Legend
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
BUFFER TIME INDEX
WEEKEND PM PEAK HOUR
617
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 57 Figure 16: Total Time Required for Reliably Traveling Northbound on SR 29 Figure 17: Total Time Required for Reliably Traveling Southbound on SR 29 618
58 | BASELINE CONDITIONS
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (Bicycle LTS) is an objective, data-driven evaluation of the bicycling experience on various types of streets. The analysis uses roadway characteristics like posted speed limit, street width, number of travel lanes, intersection conditions, traffic controls, and the presence and character of bikeways to determine bicyclist comfort level. The results assign a score between 1 and 4, with Bicycle LTS 1 being most comfortable and least stressful. Bicycle LTS 4 is least comfortable and most stressful. Additional detail on Bicycle LTS methodology is provided in Appendix E.
Corridor segments and intersection approaches in the study area were both evaluated for LTS. An overall LTS score was determined by applying the worst score between adjacent street segments and intersection approaches. Figure 18 displays the overall existing condition LTS for the study corridor. LTS for crossings were not evaluated; however, all crossings of SR 29 are assumed to be high-stress due to the traffic volume and speed of the roadway. Most local streets provide low stress connectivity within neighborhoods; however, higher stress roadways bisect these areas throughout the study area to create pockets of low stress connectivity with high stress barriers at streets with higher functional classifications, street widths, speeds and volumes.
The main barriers to low-stress connectivity for bicyclists within the SR 29 study corridor are the high stress State Routes, including SR 29, SR 221, SR 121, and SR 12. These high-stress facilities serve to discourage access to and bicycling on SR 29 itself (north-south bicycle travel). SR 29 also bifurcates the study corridor, posing as a barrier to east-west bicycle travel. Although crossing scores were not generated as part of the SR 29 CMCP, the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan Web Map presents Bicycle LTS crossing scores along SR 29, showing seven “LTS 4” and four “LTS 3” out of a total 13 crossings between SR 37 and Imola Avenue (SR 121). American Canyon Road, Newell Drive, Flosden Road, Fairgrounds Drive, and S. Kelly Road are additional high-stress roadways that limits local low-stress bicycling community access and limit viable on-street low-stress alternatives to SR 29. 619
Imola Ave
Kaiser Rd
Donaldson Way E
Donaldson Way
Mini
Meadows
Airport Blvd
Watson Ln
Napa Junction Rd
Fairgrounds
Magnolia Dr
Soscol Ferry Rd
Newell Dr
S Kelly Rd
Eucalyptus Dr
Devlin Rd
American Canyon Rd
G
olden Gate Dr
Stanly
Ln
Green Island Rd
·|}12
·|}29
·221 |}
·|}29
·|}37
·221 |}
·|}12
·|}29
FIGURE 18
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Miles
Project No.
Revision No. -
11187559
Date 02/27/2020
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI B
o N:\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Working\Report Figures\LTS\Existing Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: pthornton LTS\ExistingCombineLTS_20200227.mxd
Print date: 02 Mar 2020 - 13:49
Legend
LTS 1 (low Stress)
LTS 2 (low stress)
LTS 3 (high stress)
LTS 4 (high stress)
Roads
Corridor Boundary
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
EXISTING BICYCLE
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
620
60 | BASELINE CONDITIONS
Transit
Existing Service
Transit service in the Napa Valley is provided by Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)’s Vine Transit. Of the eight local routes, several serve the Imola corridor, which is at the northern end of the project study area. Several regional routes serve the study corridor directly, including Route 29, Route 21, Route 11 and Route 11X. Routes 29, 21, and 11X operate Monday through Friday, and Route 11 operates Monday through Sunday. Figure 192 displays the main transit lines serving the study corridor—Routes 29, 21, 11, and 11x.
Routes 11X, 21 and 29 are express buses,
serving a limited number of stops and
providing access to regional destinations, and
connection to the regional transit network,
including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), San
Francisco Bay Ferry, Fairfield-Suisun Transit,
Rio Vista Delta Breeze, Solano County Transit,
Lake Transit, Greyhound, and Amtrak/Capital
Corridor.
In addition to the previously described routes
operating in the study area, Vine Transit also
provides American Canyon Transit service
offering fixed route and on-demand, door-todoor, transit service within the City of American Canyon.
Existing Performance
Based on an analysis of existing ridership data
of the express routes serving the study area,
Route 29 experiences the highest ridership
demand. However, traffic congestion on SR 29
causes significant service delays, varied travel
times and diminished reliability. While Route 21
sees lower ridership demand than Route 29, Route 21 also experiences significant congestion on some segments of the route. Based on data presented in the Vine Transit Express Bus Corridor Study (2017), Routes 21 and 29 perform below Vine transit performance standards and typical express bus service standards across several performance metrics. Moreover, on-time performance and service reliability were highlighted as issues for both routes. The #1 need identified in the Express Bus Corridor Study was to reduce the impact of congestion on trip time and variability on Route 29.
2 Figure 19 Source: vinetransit.com
Figure 19: Regional Vine Transit Routes Serving Corridor1 621
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 61 Ridership Levels
65% of surveyed respondents said they very rarely or never used transit.3 Existing Vine Transit ridership data was obtained from NVTA. Existing ridership for Routes serving the study area is summarized in Table 7. As shown, Route 29 experiences the highest ridership demand of the express buses serving the study area.
Table 7: Existing VINE Transit Ridership - Routes 29 and 11X Existing Ridership
Route
Peak Period
AM PM Daily
Route 11 Northbound 95 47 345
Route 11 Southbound 51 86 365
Route 11X Northbound 42 22 64
Route 11X Southbound 11 17 28
Route 29 Northbound 58 77 135
Route 29 Southbound 88 35 123
Route 21 Northbound 16 30 77
Route 21 Southbound 27 12 65
Collision Data
The primary data source for collisions was the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), which uses data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). TIMS records include all injury collisions, excluding property damage only (PDO) collisions. Non-PDO collisions occurring within the study area was analyzed over a five-year period for the years between 2014 and 2018. The number of non-PDO collisions occurring within the study area during this time frame is displayed in Figure 20. Table 8 displays this data by collision severity and type.
3 NVTA. VINE Transit Express Bus Corridor Study, 2017.
277
317
288
362
304
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Figure 20: Non-PDO Study Area Collisions, 2014-2018
622
62 | BASELINE CONDITIONS
The most common crash type among all collisions within the study area was rear end type collisions, at 55% of the total. Eight percent of all fatal and injury collisions resulted in fatal or severe injury. Fifty percent of all collisions were reported as unsafe speed being the primary violation category.
Table 8: Study Area Non-PDO Collisions, 2014-2018
Collision Category Number of Collisions
Collisions By Severity
Total Collisions
Count Percent
1548 100%
Injury (Complaint of Pain) 1102 71%
Injury (Other Visible) 323 21%
Injury (Severe) 109 7%
Fatality 14 1%
Total Fatal/Severe Injuries(FSI) 123 8%
Collisions By Type
Broadside 252 16%
Head-On 48 3%
Hit Object 187 12%
Not Stated 4 0%
Other 23 1%
Overturned 49 3%
Rear End 846 55%
Sideswipe 93 6%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 46 3%
Table 9 displays collisions by severity and type that occurred on state routes within the study area.
Because the majority, or 75 %, of the total collisions occurred on state routes, the results are similar to the total study area collision counts reported in Table 8.
Table 9: Study Area Non-PDO Collisions on State Routes, 2014-2018 Collision Category Number of Collisions
Collisions By Severity
Total Collisions Count Percent
1173 100%
Injury (Complaint of Pain) 856 71%
Injury (Other Visible) 222 21%
Injury (Severe) 82 7%
Fatality 13 1%
Total Fatal/Severe Injuries(FSI) 95 8%
Collisions By Type
Broadside 115 16%
Head-On 23 3%
Hit Object 141 12%
Not Stated 4 0%
Other 13 1%
Overturned 36 3%
Rear End 758 55%
Sideswipe 67 6%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 16 3%
623
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 63 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Table 10 displays the bicycle collisions and Table 11 displays the pedestrian collisions that occurred within the corridor between 2014 and 2018. Figure 21 presents a map of pedestrian collisions and Figure 22 presents a map of bicycle collisions during this five-year time period.
Bicycle Collisions
The most common crash type among bicycle-related collisions were broadside collisions with 41% percent of bicycle collisions reported as this type. Thirty-five percent were reported as “Other.” Table 10: Bicycle Collisions, 2014-2018
Collision Category Number of Collisions Collisions By Severity Total Collisions
Count Percent
34 100%
Injury (Complaint of Pain) 17 50%
Injury (Other Visible) 14 41%
Injury (Severe) 1 3%
Fatality 2 6%
Total Fatal/Severe Injuries (FSI) 3 9%
Collisions By Type
Broadside 14 41%
Head-On 1 3%
Hit Object 0 0%
Not Stated 0 0%
Other 12 35%
Overturned 2 6%
Rear End 2 6%
Sideswipe 2 6%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 1 3%
Pedestrian Collisions
Twenty-seven percent of pedestrian collisions resulted in fatal and severe injury. Forty-three percent of pedestrian-related collisions occurred when the pedestrian was crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection.
Table 11: Pedestrian Collisions, 2014-2018
Collision Category Number of Collisions Collision by Severity Total Collisions Count Percent
51 100%
Injury (Complaint of Pain) 20 39%
Injury (Other Visible) 17 33%
Injury (Severe) 11 22%
Fatality 3 6%
Total Fatal/Severe Injuries(FSI) 14 27%
Pedestrian
Action
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection 22 43%
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection 1 2%
Crossing Not in Crosswalk 12 24%
In Road, Including Shoulder 12 24%
Not in Road 2 4%
Not Stated 2 4%
624
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù ù
ù
ù
ù
N
ewell
D
r
Corcoran
Borges
Bro
d
a
way
Mini
AirparkRd
AmericanCanyonRd
Stanly Ln
Severus
Napa
ll
Va
ye
CorporateDr
Wetland
s
Edge
d
R
Elli tt
o
D
r
Meadows SonomaGateway Danrose
Dr
Airport Rd
WImolaAve
RioDelMar
EchoSummit
SoscolFerryRd
oD
n
d
al son
Way
S
K
elly
dR
Paoli LopRd
o
Fairgrounds
JackLo
ndon
Falcon
Evelyn
Roleen
Griffin
Green Island Rd
WAmerican
CanyonRd
AirportBlvd DevlinRd
LosAltos
Dr
Golden
G
ateDr
N KellyRd
Basalt Rd
oS
s
colCreekRd
NAirportRd
W
atso
n
Ln
Technology
Way
·|þ}221
·|þ}29
·|þ}221
·|þ}12
·|þ}37
·|þ}29
City of Vallejo
City of American Canyon
City of Napa
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
Project No.
Revision No. -
11187559
Date 7/11/2019
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Grid: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Paper Size ANSI B
o
Data source: TIMS 14-18, SWITRS 14-18 World Imagery: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: bnamsaly
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\11187559_Map Set.aprx Print date: 11 Jul 2019 - 08:35
Legend
Collision By
Severity
ù Injury (Severe)
ù
Injury (Other
Visible)
ù
Injury (Complaint
of Pain)
Other
City Boundary
Roads In Corridor
Corridor Boundary
Data Disclaimer
** There are overlapping points**
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
2014 to 2018 (SWITRS / TIMS) FIGURE 21
625
NewellDr
Corcoran
Borges
rBoa
d
w
a
y
Mini
AirparkRd
AmericanCanyonRd
StanlyLn
Severus
Wetlands
Edg
e
Rd
ElliotDr t
Meadows SonomaGateway Danrose Dr
AirportRd
WImolaAve
RioDelMar
EchoSummit
SoscolFerryRd
oD
n
d
al son
Way
S
K
elly
dR
Paoli LopRd
o
Fairgrounds
JackLo
ndon
Falcon
Evelyn
Roleen
Griffin
Green Island Rd
WAmerican
CanyonRd
AirportBlvd DevlinRd
LosAltos
Dr
Golden
G
ateDr
NKellyRd
BasaltRd
oS
s
colCreekRd
NAirportRd
W
atso
n
Ln
Technology
Way
·|þ}221
·|þ}29
·|þ}221
·|þ}12
·|þ}37
·|þ}29
City of Vallejo
City of American Canyon
City of Napa
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
Project No.
Revision No. -
11187559
Date 7/11/2019
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Grid: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Paper Size ANSI B
o
\\ghdnet\ghd\US\Roseville\Projects\561\11187559\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\11187559_Map Set.aprx Data source: World Imagery: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: bnamsaly Print date: 11 Jul 2019 - 08:52
Legend
Collision By
Severity
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other
Visible)
Injury (Complaint
of Pain)
Other
City Boundary
Roads In Corridor
Corridor Boundary
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
SR 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL
CORRIDOR PLAN
BICYCLE COLLISIONS
2014 to 2018 (SWITRS / TIMS) FIGURE 22
626
66 | CORRIDOR SOLUTIONS
5 - Corridor Solutions
This chapter presents potential solutions examined for the SR 29 corridor. These solutions were identified in the preceding 2014 SR 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan, other relevant programming and planning documents, and during the course of preparing the SR 29 CMCP, including the public outreach process and the needs analysis documented in the Existing Conditions chapter of this report.
As outlined below, seven (7) categories of potential improvements have been identified. Within each of these categories, 24 separate and distinct improvements and/or services are described. Each of these improvements within these 7 categories were individually costed and prioritized for future grant funding and implementation. The categories and improvements are outlined below:
Parallel Capacity Improvements
- Devlin Road
- South Kelly Road/Newell Drive
SR 29 Multimodal Improvements
- SR 37 to Napa Junction Road
- Napa Junction Road to Paoli Loop
Road
- South Kelly Road to Soscol Junction
Intersection Improvements
- Carneros Junction
- Airport Boulevard/SR 12/SR 29
- Soscol Junction
- Grade-Separated Pedestrian
Crossings
Shared Use Paths
- Napa Valley Vine Trail
- San Francisco Bay Trail
SMART Train Extensions
- American Canyon to Vallejo Ferry
Terminal
- Novato to Suisun City
Bus Improvements
- Bus Stop Changes
- Part Time Use of Shoulder
- 11X Bus Service
- New Route 29 Bus Service
- Queue Jump
- Transit Signal Priority
- NVTA Maintenance Facility/
Transportation Management Center
Integrated Corridor Management
- Variable Message Signs
- Traffic Monitoring Detectors
- Adaptive Signal Control
- Trailblazer Signs
- CCTV Cameras
627
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 67 Online Response Summary
These potential solutions were presented to the community at outreach events and on-line mapping tool.
The mapping tool presented graphical renditions of each of the candidate corridor improvements and allowed the community to comment on the various options. A summary of this targeted outreach is provided below in Table 12
Table 12: Public Outreach Concept Preference Polling Results Concept
Yes
Support
Don’t
Support
Not
Sure
Parallel Capacity: Devlin 7 - -
Parallel Capacity: South Kelly/Newell Drive 7 - 1
Multimodal Improvements: SR 37 to Napa Junction 2 - 1
Multimodal Improvements: Napa Junction to Paoli Loop Road 3 - - Multimodal Improvements: South Kelly Road to Soscol Junction 3 - 1 Intersection Improvements: Carneros – SR 29/SR 12/SR 121 2 1 - Intersection Improvements: SR 29/SR 12/Airport Boulevard 2 1 1 Intersection Improvements : Soscol Junction 4 1 -
Grade-Separated Pedestrian Crossings 17 1 1
Vine Trail Alignment Improvement 6 - -
Bay Trail Alignment 6 1 -
SMART Extension: American Canyon to Vallejo Ferry Terminal 5 - 1 SMART Extension: Novato to Suisun City 4 - 2
Bus Stop Changes 6 - -
Bus on Shoulder 1 1 1
Route 11 Express Bus Service 4 - -
New Route 29 Bus Service 6 1 -
Bus Queue Jump 4 3 2
Bus Transit Signal Priority 4 2 5
NVTA Maintenance Facility / Transportation Management Center 3 - 1 Integrated Corridor Management: Variable Message Sign 9 3 2 Integrated Corridor Management: Traffic Monitoring Detectors 7 1 2 Integrated Corridor Management: Trailblazer Signage 6 1 1 Integrated Corridor Management: CCTV Cameras 7 1 1
628
68 | CORRIDOR SOLUTIONS
Parallel Capacity Improvements
Devlin Road Extension
The Devlin Road alignment will provide parallel road capacity to SR 29, and connectivity within the employment and industrial areas of unincorporated Napa County, in the vicinity of the airport. Most segments of this ultimate alignment have been constructed. Segment E, between Tower Road and south of Airpark Road, opened in March 2020.
Segment H, between Green Island Road and Devlin Road’s current southern terminus has secured funding. Once constructed, this will complete the full Devlin Road extension alignment shown below in Figure 23.
Figure 23 Devlin Road Parallel Capacity
629
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 69 South Kelly Road/Newell Drive Extension
The South Kelly Road/Newell Drive alignment would provide parallel roadway capacity to SR 29. This improvement would include roadway extensions of Newell Drive, Rio Del Mar, and South Kelly Road.
Newell Drive would be extended as a four-lane roadway from Donaldson Way to Rio Del Mar, and a twolane roadway from Rio Del Mar to Green Island Road.
Additionally, Rio Del Mar and South Kelly Road would each be extended as two-lane roadways to connect with the Newell Drive extension at the southern and northern ends, respectively. Portions of these extensions are anticipated to be constructed as part of the Watson Ranch Specific Plan, specifically the Rio Del Mar extension and a portion of the Newell Drive extension. The complimentary roadway extensions are shown below in Figure 24.
Figure 24 South Kelly Road/Newell Drive Parallel Capacity 630
70 | CORRIDOR SOLUTIONS
SR 29 Multimodal Improvements
Recognizing the character of the SR 29 corridor changes as the adjacent land uses and access needs change, three (3) distinct segments of SR 29 became apparent for which different cross-sections of improvements were developed. An overview of this segmentation is presented in Figure 25. The segmentation of SR 29 is as follows:
SR 37 to Napa Junction Road
Napa Junction Road to Paoli Loop Road
South Kelly Road to Soscol Junction
For each of these segments, the key elements of the proposed improvements to meet the multimodal needs of the segment are highlighted in the following sections.
SR 37 to Napa Junction Road
This solution would provide multimodal improvements on SR 29 between SR 37 and Napa Junction Road. Improvements would maintain the existing four-lane roadway and add off-corridor Class I shared use paths on both sides of the roadway, 8 foot shoulders, pedestrian refuge islands at intersections, and landscaped planting strips to separate the Class I paths from vehicle traffic. A path exists from Eucalyptus Road to Napa Junction Road. The proposed improvements along SR 29 would connect to this path. Segment One improvements are depicted in Figure 26.
Napa Junction Road to Paoli Loop Road
This solution would provide multimodal improvements from Napa Junction Road to the proposed Napa Valley Vine Trail and Paoli Loop Road. Improvements would maintain the existing four-lane roadway and include new and existing Class I shared use paths for bicycling and walking completely separated from and parallel to SR 29.
There is an existing Class I shared use path east of SR 29 from Eucalyptus Drive to Napa Junction Road, which would be extended to Paoli Loop Road. This path would connect to the proposed Napa Valley Vine Trail alignment at Paoli Loop Road with an at-grade bicycle and pedestrian railroad crossing south of Paoli Loop Road. This would provide access to the proposed Napa Valley Vine Trail alignment along Paoli Loop Road and Green Island Road, which extends north to the west of SR 29.4 Segment Two improvements are depicted in Figure 27.
Napa Junction Road to Soscol Junction
This solution would provide multimodal improvements from Napa Junction Road to Soscol Junction (SR 221). Improvements would provide buffered bike lanes on SR 29 from Napa Junction Road to Soscol Junction, and improve intersections like South Kelly Road, Green Island Road, and North Kelly Road to provide safer bicycle and pedestrian crossing. These facilities would provide a bicycle connection to existing Napa Valley Vine Trail and San Francisco Bay Trail segments east of Soscol Junction via SR 29. If feasible, additional bikeway separation from SR 29 (Class I or IV) may be pursued to enhance bicyclist comfort and safety. Segment three improvements are depicted in Figure 28.
4 The Vine Trail Coalition is studying trail alignments options along Paoli Loop. A preferred route is not yet identified. 631
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 71 Figure 25: SR 29 Multimodal Improvements Segment Overview Figure 26: SR 29 Multimodal Improvements Segment One
Segment 1: Figure 25
Segment 2: Figure 26
Segment 3: Figure 27
632
72 | CORRIDOR SOLUTIONS
Figure 27: SR 29 Multimodal Improvements Segment Two
Figure 28: SR 29 Multimodal Improvements Segment Three
633
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 73 Intersection Improvements
Carneros Junction
This solution would improve the existing signalized intersection at Carneros Junction, where SR 29 intersects with SR 12/SR 121. Carneros Junction intersection Improvements are depicted in Figure 29.
Figure 29: Carneros Junction Intersection Improvements
Improvements would include:
Converting the signal-controlled northbound through movement on SR 29 to a free no-stop through movement
Constructing a dedicated unsignalized right turn lane from southbound SR 29 to westbound SR 12, including a merge lane on SR 12 that extends approximately 1,000 feet Constructing two receiving slip lanes in the existing SR 29 median for left turns from westbound SR 12 to northbound SR 29, extending approximately 3,100 feet 634
74 | CORRIDOR SOLUTIONS
Airport Boulevard/SR 12/SR 29
Two alternatives were proposed for improvements at the intersection of SR 29 and SR 12/Airport Boulevard. The current configurations at the three study intersections (Airport Blvd & Devlin Road, SR 29 & Airport Blvd/SR 12, SR 12 & N/S Kelly Rd) are all signal configuration.
Alternative 1 would be a tight diamond interchange. With this alternative, SR 29 would be on a gradeseparated overcrossing structure, and SR 12/Airport Boulevard would cross underneath it. This is depicted in Figure 30. Alternative 1 is proposed to include signalized ramp termini.
Alternative 2 would include an interchange, with SR 12/Airport Boulevard crossing either over or under SR 29 with roundabouts also proposed at Airport Boulevard & Devlin Road, and SR 29 & North/South Kelly Road. These improvements are depicted in Figure 31. Relative to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 provides improved operational benefit at a lower construction cost.
Alternative 2 proposes a single lane roundabout at Airport Boulevard & Devlin road with an adjacent reduction in approach lanes from each direction. The intersection of SR 12 & North/South Kelly Road would become a hybrid roundabout (4 lane roadway east/west and 2 lane roadway north/south).
The intersection of SR 29 & Airport Blvd/SR 12 would be transformed from an at-grade signalized intersection into a grade-separate roundabout interchange. It is still to be determined if SR 29 would be improved to either an overcrossing structure or depressed (sunk into the ground) design. The Airport Boulevard / SR 12 roadway would become a double roundabout “dogbone” with a single westbound lane and two eastbound lanes.
Figure 30: Airport Boulevard/SR 12/SR 29 Alternative 1
Source: Caltrans Highway Design Manual
635
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 75 Figure 31: Airport Boulevard/SR 12/ SR 29 Alternative 2 636
76 | CORRIDOR SOLUTIONS
Soscol Junction
The proposed improvement at Soscol Junction (SR 29/SR 221/Soscol Ferry Road) includes construction of two roundabouts and a grade-separated overcrossing structure for SR 29. Soscol Ferry Road would cross beneath SR 29, and shared use paths would be provided to connect to future alignments in the vicinity. The improvement is displayed in Figure 32 and Figure 33.
Figure 32: Soscol Junction Intersection Improvement – Overhead View Figure 33: Soscol Junction Intersection Improvement – Perspective View 637
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 77 Shared Use Paths
Napa Valley Vine Trail
This proposed path would offer a dedicated space for people walking and bicycling parallel to SR 29 and completely separated from vehicle traffic. The overall Vine Trail project envisions 47 miles of trail system connecting the entire Napa Valley, from the City of Vallejo in Solano County to the City of Calistoga in Napa County. The current Vine Trail stretches about 12.5 miles, from Kennedy Park, along SR 221 at the northern end of the SR 29 CMCP study area, to the Town of Yountville. Several segments of the trail are in various stages of design or construction. Some segments of the trail system currently fall short of Class I standards, for example the current Class II bike lanes on Devlin Road in American Canyon.
The proposed improvements included in the SR 29 CMCP include gap closures between discontinuous segments of the Vine Trail, in particular, from Kennedy Park in the City of Napa, through Soscol Junction, to Newell Drive in the City of American Canyon. From Newell Drive, the trail would rejoin existing portions of the Vine Trail to American Canyon Road and SR 29 (Broadway). Through the City of Vallejo, a portion of the Vine Trail along Broadway, east of SR 29, to SR 37, has received funding through the Active Transportation Program (ATP) and is in final design. Figure 34 depicts the proposed Vine Trail alignments in the northern study area. Figure 35 depicts the proposed Vine Trail alignment in the southern study area.
San Francisco Bay Trail
This proposed path would offer a dedicated space for people walking and bicycling parallel to SR 29, closer to the bay. The overall Bay Trail project envisions 500 miles of trail system throughout the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, and throughout the member agencies of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Bay Trail shares alignments with other trail systems, including the Napa Valley Vine Trail, in several segments. Other “sister trails” include the Bay Area Ridge Trail, Bay Area Water Trail, and the Great Delta Trail.
As with the Vine Trail, the proposed improvements included in the SR 29 CMCP include gap closures between discontinuous segments of the Bay Trail, on the western edge of the study area. In particular, alignments are proposed along the Napa River connecting the Cities of Napa and American Canyon, west of the Napa Airport to Green Island Road. Further south, the proposed alignment would connect the trail terminus along Wetlands Edge Road in the City of American Canyon, through the City of Vallejo, and to SR 37. Figure 36 depicts the proposed Bay Trail alignments in the northern study area. Figure 37 depicts the proposed Bay Trail alignment in the southern study area. 638
78 | CORRIDOR SOLUTIONS
Figure 34: Proposed Vine Trail Alignment (Northern Corridor) Figure 35: Proposed Vine Trail Alignment (Southern Corridor) 639
STATE ROUTE 29 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN | 79 Figure 36: Proposed Bay Trail Alignment (Northern Corridor) Figure 37: Proposed Bay Trail Alignment (Southern Corridor) 640
80 | CORRIDOR SOLUTIONS
Grade-Separated Pedestrian Crossings
Grade-separated pedestrian crossings would provide safe access across major intersections for pedestrians. Proposed locations, consistent with the City of American Canyon’s General Plan Circulation Element, are along SR 29 at the intersections of Donaldson Drive, American Canyon Road, and Napa Junction Road. Figure 38 depicts the location of the proposed grade-separated pedestrian crossings.