St. Helena City Council
March 24, 2026

16 |
This toolkit serves as a resource for City
of St. Helena staff and the public on green
infrastructure measures, also known as
stormwater treatment measures, that comply
with state regulations. It outlines six approved
green infrastructure measures, followed
by guidance on their application throughout
the city, based on St. Helena’s General Plan
street types and additional considerations.

It should be noted that the City of St.

Helena also utilizes Bay Area Stormwater
Management Agencies Association (BASMAA)
regulations and standards to guide private
development compliance with stormwater
management requirements.

The toolkit aims to support the proactive integration of green infrastructure into new transportation projects,
reducing reliance on traditional storm drain systems
and helping to prevent future flooding. It provides
recommendations only and does not replace green
infrastructure or design standards established by the City of St. Helena, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, Caltrans or other applicable regulatory agencies.

Regulatory Framework
The City of St. Helena manages its storm drain system
under the State Water Board’s 2013 Phase II Small
MS4 General Permit (Permit). This Permit regulates
projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, classifying them as Regulated
Projects. For road and linear underground projects,
like utility pipeline improvements, Section E.12.c. sets stormwater treatment requirements, including green
infrastructure. However, some street and road projects
may qualify for exemptions when including sidewalks,
bike lanes, and trails built with permeable surfaces or built to direct storm water runoff to vegetated areas.

A draft reissued Small MS4 Permit was released in 2024
for public review, and the City anticipates that many
future street improvement projects will be required to
comply with the updated standards when the final Permit is adopted. Attachment D6 of the draft Permit contains
guidance on post-construction stormwater management.

The draft Permit introduces several important updates,
including stormwater control measure prioritization
and interceptor tree credits, both of which aim to
enhance stormwater management and environmental
sustainability.

Interceptor tree credits allow newly planted or preserved trees to count toward meeting a project’s stormwater
treatment requirements by capturing and intercepting
rainfall before it reaches the storm drain system. Each qualifying tree provides a defined “credit” for the volume of stormwater managed, reducing the need for other
structural treatment facilities such as bioretention
planters or infiltration basins.

To qualify, trees must meet certain criteria, such as
species type, canopy size, and placement within a
designated drainage area, and must be accompanied
by a long-term maintenance and inspection plan. This
approach incentivizes urban greening and shade canopy
expansion while helping cities achieve water-quality
compliance through natural systems.

Future street improvements are expected to follow
the requirements of the 2024 draft Permit and 2025
updates, with stormwater treatment measures aligned
to meet these standards. (Regulated projects must also
meet retention and peak flow control standards with the support of stormwater treatment measures.)
Green Infrastructure Toolkit
Agenda Item #13.1.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 17
Green Infrastructure
Measures
To aid in the planning and design of improvements
proposed by the Streets Master Plan, this toolkit provides a list of green infrastructure measures that can be
incorporated into street design to meet regulatory
requirements. Also included in this toolkit is a discussion of key considerations and maintenance needs associated
with each of the relevant green infrastructure measures.

The City should use the following key green infrastructure measures to treat stormwater, prioritized in the listed below and the guidelines in the Permit. Each measure is described in further detail in this section. In should be noted that there is an imperative to minimize the need for green infrastructure measures by first reducing the use of impervious paving wherever possible.

Green Infrastructure Measures:
+ Impervious Connection to Vegetated Areas (Selfretaining Areas) + Interceptor Tree Planting and Preservation
+ Pervious Pavement Systems
+ Bioretention Facilities
+ Flow-Through Stormwater Control Measures
+ Biofiltration (lined bioretention with perforated
pipe)
+ Landscape-based Flow-Through (tree-box media
filter, etc.)
+ Physical Structured (media filters, hydrodynamic
separators, etc.)
+ Subsurface Infiltration Stormwater Control
Measures (infiltration trenches, dry wells,
infiltration galleries, etc.)
Example of Green Infrastructure in St. Helena along St. James Court Agenda Item #13.1.

18 |
Impervious Connection to
Vegetated Areas (Self-retaining
Areas)
This green infrastructure measure manages and treats
stormwater by sloping impervious areas to drain into
adjacent vegetated (pervious) areas. These vegetated
zones act as self-retaining areas, absorbing and
infiltrating the runoff, thereby reducing the volume and improving water quality. This allows stormwater to be
efficiently directed into adjacent green areas, minimizing the need for underground drainage in a low-impact, costeffective way.

Key Considerations
+ Ensure a maximum 2:1 ratio of impervious to pervious
area and maintain proper slopes to facilitate sheet
flow into vegetated areas.
+ Adhere to minimum ponding depth and slope
requirements to avoid erosion and ensure effective
stormwater infiltration.
+ Position vegetated areas strategically in medians,
roadside strips, or behind sidewalks to optimize
stormwater management.
+ Use appropriate soil media to support vegetation and
facilitate infiltration.
+ Ensure that runoff from impervious surfaces (streets, sidewalks, parking lots) is directed into vegetated
areas via sheet flow rather than concentrated flow to
prevent erosion.
+ Use plants that thrive in St. Helena’s Mediterranean
climate, such as oaks, manzanita, native grasses, and
riparian species.
+ Utilize bioretention systems if the available right-ofway limits pervious area size (see bioretention section for more details).
+ Awareness of seasonal groundwater depth in
proximity to the proposed facility.

Maintenance Needs
+ Regularly prune, remove weeds, and replace dead or
damaged plants to maintain functionality.
+ Clear litter, sediment, and debris from vegetated
areas and adjacent impervious surfaces to prevent
clogging.
+ Address erosion or scouring promptly by regrading or
reinforcing areas as needed.
+ Periodically inspect slopes, ponding areas, and
vegetation health to ensure proper performance.
+ Replenish or amend soil media as required to
maintain infiltration capacity.

Impervious Connection to Vegetated Areas, Napa County Impervious Connection to Vegetated Areas, Seattle, WA Agenda Item #13.1.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 19
Interceptor Tree Planting and
Preservation
This measure involves strategically planting new trees
or preserving existing ones to intercept and manage
stormwater. Trees intercept rainfall on their leaves and branches, allowing water to evaporate (through a process called evapotranspiration) before it reaches the ground.

The root systems of these trees enhance stormwater
uptake, promote infiltration, and reduce surface runoff.

Utilizing interceptor trees can be an effective strategy for reducing the amount of impervious area within the street that requires treatment, thereby decreasing the size of other green infrastructure measures. In some instances, municipalities may decide to apply interceptor tree credits.

For example, credits could be applied to different tree types, new deciduous, new evergreen, and existing, each of which is assigned a specific square footage reduction from the total impervious area in stormwater treatment
calculations.

The City administers the interceptor tree credit
program as part of its local stormwater management
responsibilities under the State Water Board’s Phase II Small MS4 Permit. The City establishes eligibility criteria (e.g., canopy size, species selection, location within the drainage area), develops design and documentation
standards, and verifies compliance during project
design review and post-construction inspection. Ongoing maintenance and inspection requirements are included to ensure long-term performance.

Similar crediting approaches have been adopted by other Bay Area municipalities, based on guidance from the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
(BASMAA). If St. Helena elects to apply an interceptor
tree credit program under the forthcoming Phase II MS4
Permit reissuance, it would administer the program
locally, consistent with state and regional standards, to ensure transparency, accountability, and measurable
water-quality benefits.

Key Considerations
+ Consider the canopy of mature trees to reduce the
impervious area requiring stormwater treatment.
+ Retain existing and strategically place proposed trees within the right-of-way to maximize benefits.
+ Choose tree species that are well-suited to local
climate, soil conditions, and expected stormwater
loads.
+ Prioritize native or drought-tolerant species to reduce water demand and enhance ecological benefits.
+ Ensure adequate spacing between trees to avoid root
conflicts with infrastructure and allow for canopy
growth.
+ In flood-prone areas near the Napa River and Sulphur
Creek, trees can aid in stabilizing soils and managing
stormwater.
+ Near vineyards and agricultural buffers maintain tree canopies to reduce soil erosion and filter runoff before it enters waterways.

Interceptor Trees, Mitchell Drive, St. Helena, CA Interceptor Trees, Berkeley, CA Agenda Item #13.1.

20 |
+ Select fire-resistant trees in wildland-urban
interface areas, maintaining defensible space around
structures.
+ In flood-prone zones, ensure trees can withstand
seasonal saturation and soil erosion.

Maintenance Needs
+ Regularly prune, water, and inspect trees for health
and structural stability.
+ Clear debris from tree wells, grates, and infiltration zones to maintain proper stormwater flow.
+ Regularly clear dry leaf litter and deadwood to
minimize fire risk during peak summer months.
+ Ensure soil around trees remains uncompacted and
nutrient-rich to support growth.
+ Conduct periodic tree health assessments to check for stress, nutrient deficiencies, or signs of decline.
+ Watch for sudden oak death (SOD), powdery mildew,
and root rot, which are prevalent in Napa County’s oak
woodlands.

Pervious Pavement Systems
Pervious pavements, such as gravel-set pavers (also
known as permeable pavers), decomposed granite,
pervious concrete, or porous asphalt, allow stormwater to infiltrate into the subgrade, reducing runoff and providing storage in the gravel base. Stormwater is stored in the gravel base and infiltrated into subgrade, if soil conditions allow. They are ideal when site constraints limit the
amount of landscaping. These pavement types can either
be self-treating or self-retaining and be designed to
accept runoff from impervious surfaces via sheet flow.

Key Considerations
+ Ideal for parking strips, pedestrian zones, or areas
with lower traffic volumes and loads.
+ Use gravel shoulders or vegetative buffers to
minimize sediment transport onto the pavement.
+ In vineyard areas, ensure pervious pavement does not
become compacted due to agricultural equipment.
+ Include geotechnical recommendations and proper
edge treatments (e.g., deepened curbs) to maintain
structural integrity.
+ Consider seasonal flooding risks near Napa River and
its tributaries when selecting pavement location and
sub-base design.
+ Select pavement type based on anticipated use and
traffic volumes to ensure long-term performance.
+ Assess soil type and permeability—many areas in
Napa County have compacted or clay-heavy soils
that may require sub-base modifications to improve
infiltration.
+ Porous asphalt or pervious concrete may be suitable
for low-traffic roads or parking lots but require
careful maintenance.
+ Consider using rainwater harvesting systems
alongside pervious pavement to enhance water
conservation.
+ Similar to other measures, awareness of seasonal
groundwater depth in proximity to the proposed
facility.

Agenda Item #13.1.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 21
Maintenance Needs
+ Conduct periodic sweeping or raking for gravel-based
pervious surfaces to maintain porosity.
+ Use a low-impact vacuum or compressed air system
for deeper cleaning in interlocking pavers or porous
concrete areas.
+ Regularly remove accumulated dust, soil, and organic
debris from unpaved surroundings.
+ Periodically inspect for signs of compaction, cracking, or drainage issues.
+ After heavy rain events, inspect for sediment buildup and infiltration performance.
+ Adapt maintenance practices based on adjacent land
uses and traffic volume.

Pervious parking lane, Oakland, CA
Pervious crosswalk, Seattle, WA
Agenda Item #13.1.

22 |
Bioretention Bulbout Bioretention Strip, Bellevue, Washington Bioretention Facilities
A bioretention facility is a landscaped area designed
to capture and treat stormwater runoff by filtering it
through soil and plants, removing pollutants before the water infiltrates into the ground or is discharged. These systems use deeper basins, soil mixes, and gravel layers to manage runoff effectively and are commonly placed
in landscape strips, bulb-outs, or behind sidewalks.

Structural curbs or retaining walls may be needed for
adjacent improvements.

Key Considerations
+ Use when there are space constraints within the
right-of-way, which limit the feasibility of treating
roadway surfaces using vegetated areas or pervious
pavements.
+ Require significantly less space than vegetated areas, at 4% (versus 50%) of tributary impervious area.
+ Commonly located in landscape strips, bulb-outs, or
behind sidewalks; runoff routed via gutters or swales.
+ Include 6”-12” ponding depth, 18” bioretention soil
mix, and 12” gravel layer; structural curbs or walls
may be required in tight spaces.
+ Avoid horizontal liners where soil allows for
infiltration; use elevated perforated pipes to enhance
retention.
+ Bioretention areas require a deep basin and soil
section, as well as 3:1 side slopes or structural curbs.

Maintenance Needs
+ Regularly remove sediment and debris to prevent
clogging.
+ Maintain healthy vegetation through pruning, weeding, and replanting as needed.
+ Inspect and repair retaining walls, curbs, and slopes for stability.
+ Ensure bioretention soil mix remains uncompacted
and drainage layers function properly.

Agenda Item #13.1.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 23
BASMAA Green Infrastructure Bioretention Section Detail BASMAA Green Infrastructure Bioretention Bulbout Detail Agenda Item #13.1.

24 |
Flow-Through Stormwater Control
Measures
Flow-through systems effectively manage stormwater
without relying on infiltration, making them ideal for areas with poorly draining soils, high groundwater tables, or space constraints. These systems are designed to capture and treat runoff before safely discharging it into storm drains or nearby waterways. By using engineered media,
vegetation, or filtration chambers, they help remove
pollutants, improve water quality, and regulate flow rates.

While they do not contribute to groundwater recharge (a process where water infiltrates from the surface into the groundwater), flow-through systems still provide essential stormwater management benefits, such as reducing peak
flows, controlling runoff volume, and enhancing overall water quality.

Biofiltration
(lined bioretention with perforated pipe)
Biofiltration utilizes a bioretention system with an
impermeable liner. The filter medium is composed of a
porous material, such as sand, granulated active carbon or synthetic material, and activated by microorganisms
that remove pollution from the water that passes through.

It is suitable for sites where infiltration is infeasible due to soil or proximity to structures and may be installed downstream of impervious areas in the right-of-way.

Key Considerations
+ St. Helena’s varied soil types and potential presence of high groundwater levels may require careful
selection of engineered media to ensure proper
filtration and drainage.
+ The impermeable liner prevents infiltration, making it essential to design an efficient underdrain system for
controlled outflow.
+ Placement should prioritize areas with high
impervious coverage, such as commercial corridors,
to maximize pollutant removal and runoff control.

Maintenance Needs
+ Regular inspection and removal of accumulated
sediment and debris, especially after major storm
events, to prevent clogging of the media and
underdrain system.
+ Checking for signs of blockage, standing water, or
slow drainage, which could indicate maintenance
needs.

Biofiltration System, Vancouver, BC
Agenda Item #13.1.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 25
Landscape-based Flow-Through
Stormwater Control Measures
This measure involves the use of natural elements, such as vegetation, as a filter for stormwater. Bioswales and rain gardens are examples. In space-limited areas, treebox media filters may be used; these require deeper sections and careful elevation design for proper drainage.

Tree-box media filters are only allowed to be used
when very specific conditions are met, such as historic structures or landscapes limiting available space for other green infrastructure measures. Additional detail is in the MS4 Permit document.

Key Considerations
+ Ensure adequate space and proper grading for
bioswales, rain gardens, and green roofs. In
constrained areas, tree-box media filters may be
used but only under specific conditions (e.g., historic structures or limited space).
+ Proper elevation design is critical to maintain effective drainage and prevent water from pooling or bypassing
the system.
+ Use native or drought-tolerant vegetation that can
thrive in local conditions while effectively filtering
pollutants.

Maintenance Needs
+ Regular inspection and removal of accumulated
sediment and debris, especially after major storm
events, to prevent clogging of the media and
underdrain system
+ Prune, remove invasive species, and replace dead or
unhealthy plants to maintain effectiveness
+ Periodically replace and monitor the condition of the filter media to prevent system failure due to clogging
or compaction
Tree Box Media Filters, San Rafael, CA
Tree Box Media Filters, Typical Detail, San Mateo County Agenda Item #13.1.

26 |
Physically Structured
Physically structured measures are not landscape-based
and can be placed below hardscape. Examples include
media filter vaults and hydrodynamic separators. Like
tree-box media filters, the MS4 Permit restricts use
of media filter vaults and hydrodynamic separators to
certain special cases. Reference should be made to the
MS4 Permit document for specific requirements.

Key Considerations
+ Systems may have limitations in filtering out
dissolved pollutants compared to landscape-based
options.
+ Must be designed to handle expected stormwater flow
rates without clogging or bypassing untreated water.

Maintenance Needs
+ Regular inspection and removal of accumulated
sediment and debris, especially after major storm
events, to prevent clogging of the media and
underdrain system.
+ Must be emptied and cleaned at scheduled intervals
to prevent resuspension of captured pollutants.

Media Filter Vault Typical Detail, San Mateo County
Subsurface Infiltration Stormwater
Control Measures
Subsurface Infiltration Stormwater Control Measures are underground systems that store and slowly release water into the soil. As the water sinks, pollutants and sediments are filtered out. They are typically stone beds or basins located below hardscape and used when there is no
available landscape for traditional treatment measures.

Examples of subsurface infiltration systems include
infiltration trenches or galleries.

Green Infrastructure Infiltration Gallery Typical Detail, San Francisco PUC
Key Considerations
+ Requires soils with adequate permeability to allow
for infiltration. A geotechnical analysis should
confirm infiltration rates and groundwater separation
requirements.
+ System must be designed to handle expected
stormwater volumes while preventing surface
flooding or excessive subsurface saturation.
+ If any overlying surface includes permeable pavers or gravel, ensure vegetation does not impede infiltration.

Maintenance Needs
+ Conduct periodic inspections, particularly after major storm events, to assess sediment buildup, infiltration
performance, and potential clogging.
+ Clear sediment and debris from inlets, pretreatment
structures, and access points to maintain infiltration
capacity.
+ Test percolation rates periodically to ensure water
is infiltrating as designed; reduced infiltration may
indicate clogging or compaction.

Agenda Item #13.1.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 27
Open Space/ Rural
Provides access to open space, vineyards,
agricultural areas, and rural residences.

Typically lacks sidewalks and curbs, though
some may include bicycle boulevards and
low-speed limits.

Industrial Collector
Designed for truck access to industrial
and manufacturing areas. Sidewalks are
present, but bicycle and transit facilities
are typically not included.

Residential
Serves neighborhoods, emphasizing
pedestrian and bicycle amenities with slow
driving speeds to support local trips.

Downtown/ Mixed Use
Accommodates all travel modes with
features promoting livability, including
wide sidewalks, traffic calming, and bicycle
boulevards.

Regional Collector
Primarily designed for citywide and
regional access, this street supports cars,
transit, and truck traffic.

This section examines the suitability of streetscape
amenities for each street type defined in the St. Helena 2040 General Plan Update. The street typology provides
a framework for selecting the most effective green
infrastrcuture based on factors like street function,
surrounding land use, transportation priorities, and
community needs. By aligning these elements with the
city’s street types, this toolkit provides strategies to improve public spaces, enhance the pedestrian and cyclist experience, and strengthen St. Helena’s character.

Street Typology + Green Infrastructure Matrix
Agenda Item #13.1.

28 | STREETSCAPE AND PLACEMAKING TOOLKIT ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 29 Green
Infrastructure
Measure
Impervious connection to
vegetated areas
Interceptor Tree Planting and
Preservation Pervious Pavement Systems Bioretention Facilities Flow-Through Stormwater Control Measures Subsurface Infiltration Suitability
Overview
Impervious connections to vegetated
areas are especially effective for rural
and residential roads, where the rightof-way (pervious area) is generally smaller than that of other street types.

These streets also often have ample
natural drainage areas due to larger
building setbacks and green buffer
spaces on either side.

Interceptor trees, for the purpose of
stormwater management, are best
suited for rural, industrial collector,
and residential streets, which can
accommodate larger landscape
buffers that accomodate bigger tree
species. These streets also have lower
traffic volumes, allowing tree planting
without major visibility or safety
concerns.

Pervious paving suits mixed-use and
residential streets with lower traffic
volumes, reducing compaction and
allowing water infiltration. Pervious
paving can also contribute to the
visual appeal of these pedestrian
oriented street types.

Bioretention facilities are well-suited
for more urban, space-constrained
streetscapes, with higher pedestrian
activity, and are suitable for downtown
mixed-use and residential streets.

Their space-efficient design manages
stormwater while enhancing the
aesthetic of the street.

Flow-through stormwater treatment
suits industrial, downtown/mixeduse, and regional collector streets where dense infrastructure limits
deep infiltration. Ideal for areas with
compacted soils, high groundwater,
or contamination risks, these systems
manage runoff effectively without
risking groundwater contamination or
structural instability.

Residential streets are often the most
suitable for implementing subsurface
infiltration systems for stormwater
management because they have
limited space, lower vehicle volumes,
and less impervious surface. This
combination results in reduced runoff
volumes and increased opportunities
for effective infiltration.

Potential
Applications
Large landscape buffers and/or areas
outside the official right-of-way that
can be used for landscaping and
vegetation.

Trees can be planted/located in
the sidewalk (planted in pits or
boxes), landscape buffer zones, curb
extensions, and plaza and courtyard
spaces.

Pervious paving can be used in
furnishing zones, shared-use paths,
parking areas, edge treatements,
roadway shoulders, plaza and
courtyard spaces.

Bioretention facilities can be
integrated into curb extensions,
medians, and buffer spaces, serving
both stormwater management and
aesthetic purposes.

Flow-through control measures can
be integrated into vegetated planters,
shallow vegetated channels, tree
pits, curb extensions, pedestrian
islands, and media filter vaults below
hardscape.

Subsurface infiltration system can be
applied beneath roadways, sidewalks,
parking lanes, or green strips between
the curb and sidewalk.

Street Type
Open Space/ Rural
Industrial Collector
Residential
Downtown/
Mixed Use
Regional Collector
Street Typology + Green Infrastructure Matrix
The matrix below outlines St. Helena’s street and key green infrastructure measures, evaluating their suitability and potential applications for each type.

Least Suitable Suitability Depends on Site Context Most Suitable Agenda Item #13.1.

30 |
Facilities Adjacent to Rivers and/or
within the Floodplain
Portions of the city, particularly along the Napa River and Sulphur Creek, fall within FEMA’s 1% and 0.5% annual
chance special flood hazard zones (or protected by
levee), meaning they are at risk of significant flooding.

As climate change accelerates, these areas are expected to experience more frequent and severe flood events,
making flood management strategies increasingly
critical. In floodplain areas, green infrastructure
measures play an essential role in absorbing rainfall,
reducing runoff, and improving water quality. When
incorporating green infrastructure into streetscapes
adjacent to floodplains, careful planning is required to ensure effectiveness, resilience, and compliance with
regulatory standards, ultimately enhancing the city’s
ability to manage stormwater and mitigate flood risks.

When implementing green infrastructure on streets in
floodplain areas, it is essential that elements do not
obstruct natural flood flows or increase flood risks. To effectively manage excess water, green infrastructure
measures should prioritize detention and controlled
release rather than relying solely on infiltration. Streets and trails may also need to be elevated to remain
accessible. Strategies such as raised roadways and
boardwalks can help accommodate water movement
while maintaining connectivity. Additionally, using
flood-resistant materials, such as high-strength, waterresistant pavements, enhances durability and reduces maintenance needs. To further improve resilience,
breakaway or flexible infrastructure—such as floodable
sidewalks and bioswales—can be integrated to withstand
periodic inundation without long-term damage. Finally,
incorporating emergency overflow channels ensures that
excess water is safely directed away from streets and
structures, minimizing the risk of localized flooding and enhancing overall floodplain management.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-5
9 public health, safety, and noise
Chaix Ln
Fir Hill Dr
Mills Ln
Melrose Ln
Meadowood Ln
York Ln
Fulton Ln
Tokay Ln
Dean York Ln
W heeler Ln
Inglewood Ave
La Fata St
Victoria Ln
Laguna Seca
Davis Ln
Mccorkle Ave
Tainter St
Stanton Dr
Contento Ln
Edwards St
Money Way
Del Rio Ct
Boyson Ln
Mccormick St
Railroad Ave
Pope St
Starr Ave
N Crane Ave
Kearney St
Hollis Ln
Palmer Dr
Stice Ln
Vineyard Ave
Allyn Ave
Valley View Ave
Hillview Pl
Hudson Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allison Ave
Hunt Ave
Elmhurst Ave
Pinot Way
Charter Oak Ave
Chiles Ave
Madrona Ave
Dowdell Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock Rd
·|}29
College Ave
Deer Park Rd
Sylvaner Ave
White Ln
Spring Mountain Rd
Fawn Park Rd
Spring St
Silverado Trail
Oak Ave
Crane Ave
Lewelling Ln
·|}29
Stockton St
Madrona Ave Spring St
Howell Mountain Rd
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Pratt Ave
Grayson Ave
Lodi Ln
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Stockton St
Silverado Trail
Vineland Ave
Paseo Grand Dr
Mountain View Ave
Park St
Hudson Ave
Garden Ave
Con n Valley Rd
Vallejo St
Scott St
Charter Oak Ave
Conn Creek
Napa River
Sulpher Creek
York Creek
Canon Creek
Data Source: City of St. Helena, 2018; Napa County, 2018; FEMA, 2018; Dyett & Bhatia, 2018 0 1,000 2,000 4,000Feet

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
City of St. Helena
Figure 9.1
Flood Zones
Railroads
Water Features
Urban Limit Line
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
Floodway
100-Year Flood Zone (1%
Annual Chance Flood Hazard)
500-Year Flood Zone (0.2%
Annual Chance Flood Hazard)
Reduced Risk Areas due to
Levee
ST. HELENA G
Fir Hill Dr
Mills Ln
Meadowood Ln
Fulton Ln
Tokay Ln
Dean York Ln
La Fata St
Laguna Seca
Mccorkle Ave
Tainter St
Stanton Dr
Contento Ln
Edwards St
Money Way
Del Rio Ct
Boyson Ln
Mccormick St
Railroad Ave
Pope St
Starr Ave
N Crane Ave
Kearney St
Hollis Ln
Palmer Dr
Vineyard Ave
Allyn Ave
Valley View Ave
Hillview Pl
Hudson Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allison Ave
Hunt Ave
Elmhurst Ave
Pinot Way
Charter Oak Ave
Chiles Ave
Madrona Ave
Dowdell Ln
·|}29
College Ave
Sylvaner Ave
Spring Mountain Rd
Spring St
Silverado Trail
Oak Ave
Crane Ave
Lewelling Ln
·|}29
Stockton St
Madrona Ave Spring St
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Pratt Ave
Grayson Ave
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Stockton St
Paseo Grand Dr
Park St
Hudson Ave
Vallejo St
Scott St
Charter Oak Ave
Sulpher Creek
York Creek
Data Source: City of St. Helena, 2018; Napa County, 2018; FEMA, 2018; Dyett & Bhatia, 2018 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
City of St. Helena
Railroads
Water Features
Urban Limit Line
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
Floodway
100-Year Flood Zone (1%
Annual Chance Flood Hazard)
500-Year Flood Zone (0.2%
Annual Chance Flood Hazard)
Reduced Risk Areas due to
Levee
2040 General Plan Update: Figure 9.1 Flood Zones
Elevated walkway over bioswale, Irvine, CA
Additional Considerations
Agenda Item #13.1.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 31
Roadway Extensions + New
Roadways
As St. Helena develops roadway extensions and new
roadways into the future, there is an opportunity to
strategically integrate green infrastructure measures.

Extension projects, some of which navigate over
the Napa River and Sulphur Creek and are located
within designated floodways, require a stormwater
management approach that prioritizes flood resilience,
water quality improvements, and ecological health.

Roadway projects in flood prone areas should incorporate elevated roadways, floodable green spaces, and
permeable infrastructure to reduce impacts on natural
water flow. Bridges or raised sections could be designed to minimize disruption to floodplain hydrology while
bioswales, rain gardens, and constructed wetlands could be incorporated along the road edges to manage runoff,
improve infiltration, and enhance habitat connectivity.

In areas where new crossings over the Napa River and
Sulphur Creek are needed, designs should account
for both hydraulic capacity and ecological restoration, ensuring that infrastructure does not exacerbate flood
risks or degrade water quality.

Proactively integrating green infrastructure into these key roadway extensions would not only improve
transportation connectivity in St. Helena but also
strengthen resilience to flooding and climate change.

These projects offer a unique opportunity to align
transportation and stormwater planning, creating
multi-functional roadways that serve both mobility and
environmental sustainability goals.

Building on Planned Stormwater
Improvements Projects
St. Helena should leverage existing stormwater
improvement projects to strategically incorporate green infrastructure measures into planned and ongoing
efforts. For example, in areas where new storm drains
are being installed, complementary green infrastructure elements can be integrated to slow, filter, and absorb
runoff before it enters the drainage system. Similarly, alongside ecosystem restoration efforts like the Upper
York Creek project, the city can expand riparian buffer zones, reintroduce native vegetation, and create
floodable green spaces that not only support habitat
restoration but also improve stormwater infiltration
and flood mitigation. Taking a strategic, multi-benefit approach to stormwater infrastructure will help St.

Helena maximize environmental and community
benefits while reducing the strain on traditional gray
infrastructure. By incorporating green infrastructure
into planned improvements, the city can enhance
long-term resiliency and comply with regulatory
requirements. Additionally, at the time of writing, the Water Management Plan by West Yost is reviewing
all water resources as an opportunity to strengthen
the City’s overall water management and resiliency
strategy, aligning with these integrated stormwater and ecosystem restoration goals.

Agenda Item #13.1.

St Helena Streets Master Plan
Streetscape Toolkits
Agenda Item #13.1.

St Helena Streets Master Plan
Appendix B
Community Engagement
Summary Memo
Agenda Item #13.1.

St. Helena Streets Master Plan
Public Engagement Summary
March 2026
Agenda Item #13.1.

INTRODUCTION
Purpose
This summary describes the outreach and engagement efforts for the St. Helena Streets Master Plan, which are two distinct, but related activities:

Outreach is the act of distributing information and materials about the project to the public. Outreach is uni-directional: during outreach, information will flow from the City of St. Helena to the community. The purpose of outreach is to let target populations know when, where, and how to participate in engagement opportunities.

Engagement is interactive. Engagement requires multi-directional lines of communication: during engagement, information flows between City staff, partner organizations and agencies, and community members. During engagement, stakeholders and community members are active participants.

Goals
The goals of the outreach and engagement process are to:
• Gather public feedback to inform plan recommendations. • Energize and engage stakeholders and residents familiar with St. Helena’s planning efforts, so they can become active partners and advocates throughout and beyond the project. • Coordinate with the Downtown Specific Plan engagement in effort to (1) clearly distinguish between the two project efforts and (2) reduce engagement fatigue.

Phasing
Outreach and engagement for the St. Helena Streets Master Plan will take place over the course of ten months. The process is divided into three phases, each with distinct goals, targeted strategies, and materials.

Phase 3
Final Conceptual
Designs +
Draft Plan
April 2025 -
March 2026
Phase 2
Priority Projects +
Draft Conceptual
Designs
November 2024 -
April 2025
Phase 1
Existing
Conditions +
Proposed Projects
August 2024 -
November 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

PHASE 1 – EXISTING CONDITIONS + PROPOSED PROJECTS:

August – November 2024
The following summarizes the outreach and engagement efforts for Phase 1 of St. Helena Streets Master Plan, with a focus on key findings collected during virtual stakeholder interviews and in-person engagement.

The primary goals of Phase 1 were to:
• Get input on challenges related to the existing road network, including bike and pedestrian infrastructure • Determine which of the proposed network-wide projects are the most critical and should be prioritized for further analysis and design
• Share findings from the technical studies, particularly the comprehensive list/map of proposed transportation infrastructure projects (sourced from previous planning efforts and recommended by the project team)
Engagement included the following key questions:
• What transportation and streetscape projects or improvements do you think should be prioritized for the city?
• Are there any challenges you face while navigating the city, and what changes would you like to see to address them?
• Which aspects of the city’s current transportation and mobility infrastructure do you value and believe should be maintained?
Phase 1 By the Numbers
Outreach Successes:
• Emails distributed to promote the project and encourage participation in Stakeholder Interviews • Project landing page launched on City website
Engagement Successes:
• 2 x Pop-up events (at the St. Helena Farmer’s Market and the Harvest Festival), during which the project team spoke to approximately 80 people who live, work, and/or have a child who goes to school in St. Helena
• 3 x Focus groups with stakeholders and agency partners (12 participants in total) • One-on-one interviews with planning commissioners and councilpersons Agenda Item #13.1.

Engagement Techniques and Key Findings
The following provides a detailed summary of the engagement techniques and findings from Phase 1:

Focus Groups
To dive deeper into specific issues and opportunities, the project team facilitated three, one-hour focus group conversations. After a brief presentation on the project goals, process, and initial network-wide opportunities and constraints, the project team used the Miro digital whiteboard to gather feedback. Attendees were invited to respond to the following questions, with notes and ideas added to a live map for everyone to follow in real time:
• What challenges do you believe exist when navigating the city and what changes would help address them? • Which aspects of the City’s current transportation and mobility infrastructure do you value and believe should be maintained?
• What transportation and streetscape projects or improvements do you think should be prioritized for the city?
Details on focus group dates and attendees are provided below*:

Group 1: City Staff (8/27/24)
Attendees:
• Juan Gonzalez, Fire Chief
• Chris Hartley, Chief of Police
• Dave Jans, Director of Community Services
• Carlos Uribe, Interim Ops Public Works
• Mario Traverso, Project Manager for Public Works
Group 2: Transportation Stakeholders (8/28/24)
Attendees:
• Carlotta Sainato, Program Manager at Napa County Bicycle Coalition (NCBC) • Kara Vernor, Executive Director, Napa County Bicycle Coalition (NCBC) • John Pulliam, Kimley Horn (Consultant for the Vine Trail) • Shawn Casey-White
• Danielle Schmitz, Napa Valley Transit Authority
Group 3: School Stakeholders (9/26/24)
Attendees:
• Ted Stonbely, Assistant Head of School at St. Helena Montessori • Mikhael Florez, Director Facilities & Operations, St. Helena Unified * In addition to the groups above, the project team also held a one-on-one discussion with a City Council Member.

Key Feedback from Focus Groups:
• Proposed improvements and bikeways on Madrona Avenue, Adams Avenue, and Pope Street should be prioritized.
o Pope Street has inconsistent bike facilities and visibility challenges; considerations should include separated bike lanes and increased shade.
• New/improved bikeways on Sulphur Creek, Adams Avenue, and Pope Street could offer strong connections to the future Vine Trail
• Evacuation routes should be a priority for improvements Agenda Item #13.1.

• If a future extension of Oak Avenue includes vehicles, high-quality bike and pedestrian facilities should be a top priority
• Consider bike- and pedestrian-only connections between cul-de-sacs • Improve safety for those crossing Highway 29 (Main Street) o The Hunt and Main Street intersection feels particularly dangerous o Crossing improvements should be focused south of Downtown • More north-south routes are needed on the east side of Main Street to create a complete, city-wide circulation network
• Expanding transit service options throughout the valley would help reduce vehicle dependence for schoolaged children, parents, and the workforce • Ensure that Class III (Bike Boulevards) include traffic calming elements, not just sharrows • Encouraging school-age children to bike fosters a lifelong habit; prioritizing safe bikeways for all ages is essential
• The Vine Shuttle has helped reduce vehicle reliance for children commuting to St. Helena for school from the surrounding region
• Exploring the daylighting bill could improve visibility at intersections while serving as an opportunity to repurpose parking spaces for streetscape improvements
• This effort could champion and build upon the culture of recreational walking and biking that already exists in St. Helena
 Drop-off and pick-up times at St. Helena High School can be chaotic, with students often crossing outside crosswalks. Off-campus lunch for the highschoolers also increases midday foot traffic downtown and in the southwest part of the city on weekdays.

Images from Virtual Focus Groups conducted in Phase 1.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Pop-ups
The project team hosted a tent at two major city events with high foot traffic, engaging attendees already present and capitalizing on the built-in audience. The first pop-up took place on October 18, 2024, from 7:30 am to 12:00 pm at the St. Helena Farmer’s Market, followed by a second on October 19, 2024, from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm at the annual Hometown Harvest Festival on Oak Street. At both events, the team distributed project flyers, invited attendees to complete a brief online survey, and led interactive activities to gather feedback.

The project team provided three activity boards where participants were asked to prioritize recommendations for new bikeway projects, crossing improvements, and roadway extension and bridge realignment projects. See Appendix A for photos of completed activity boards.

Images from the Pop-ups in Phase 1.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Key Feedback: Proposed Bikeway Projects
The project team asked participants to select the proposed bike facilities that were their top priority. A tally of the total votes for each project is presented on the following page. The three proposed bike facility projects that garnered the most community support include:
 Project 6: 28 votes: A shared-use path along the Napa River  Project 9 - 20 votes: A shared-use path along Sulphur Creek from Sulphur Spring Rd to the Napa River Trail  Project 38 - 8 votes: A new bikeway (facility TBD) along a proposed extension of Oak Avenue The bikeway prioritization activity revealed a strong preference for bikeway projects that are entirely separated from car traffic. Verbal feedback also underscored a general preference for bikeway/trail facilities that prioritize enjoyment and leisure over transportation efficiency.

Additional Feedback and Themes
• Participants noted several off-street facilities that bicyclists and runners currently use as informal loops, including Fir Hill Drive and the green spaces and subdivisions east of Starr Avenue and south of Adams.

They expressed a desire to formalize these areas and enhance connectivity to them. • Policies and programs aimed at raising awareness of safe biking locations would be beneficial. • Potholes pose a significant safety issue for bicyclists throughout the city, deterring biking. Sulphur Spring Avenue was specifically mentioned as a problem area.
• Several locations were identified as areas that need improvement:
o Valley View Street, from Birch Avenue to Grayson Avenue, feels unsafe for some bicyclists, despite having Class II bike lanes, due to the visibility challenges at the bend in the road o Pope Street, from Chiles Avenue to Allison Avenue, was noted as another unsafe pinch point for bicyclists, due to the narrow road with no dedicated bike lanes combined with poor visibility at the curve
o Adams Street, between Oak Avenue and Main Street, was highlighted as a particularly narrow roadway. Several participants suggested that removing street parking on one or both sides could improve safety for bicyclists.
• Silverado Trail is infrequently used by bicyclists because the bike lanes are too narrow and vehicles travel at high speeds, making it feel unsafe for biking. Because of this, a trail along the Napa River is a desirable alternative to the current Silverado facilities.
• Participants identified bridges as a low priority for biking and walking infrastructure, noting that there are currently no significant destinations to access east of the Napa River for pedestrians or bicyclists. • There is a general excitement surrounding the Vine Trail and a strong desire to develop a better bike network that connects to this future facility.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Proposed Bikeway Project Farmer’s
Market
Harvest
Festival
Total
Votes
1 Crane Park Path (to La Quinta Way) from Grayson Ave to Kennedy Ct 2 2 2 Library Lane Path 1 1
3 Lower Reservoir Loop Trail from city limits to Spring Mtn Rd 1 1 4 McCorkle Ave Path to College Ave
5 Mills Ln from Main St to Starr Ave Ext
6 Napa River Trail 5 25 28
7 Pope St from Starr Ave to Silverado Trl 3 3
8 Starr Ave from Mills to Adams St 1 1
9 Sulphur Creek from Sulphur Spring Rd to Napa River Trail 8 12 20 10 York Creek Path from Spring Mtn Rd to Vine Trail 1 1 11 Adams St from Railroad to Starr Ave 1 1
12 S Crane Ave from Grayson Ave to Sulphur Springs Ave 3 3 13 Grayson Ave from Crane to Main St 1 1
14 Madrona Ave from Riesling Wy to Oak Ave 1 1 2
15 Allyn Ave from Madrona Ave to Spring St 1 1
16 Hudson Ave from Madrona Ave to Spring St
Proposed Bikeways Activity Board
Agenda Item #13.1.

Key Feedback: Proposed Crossing Improvements
The project team asked participants to select locations for proposed crossing improvements that were their top priority. A tally of the total votes for each project is presented on the following page. The three locations for crossing improvements that garnered the most community support include:
 Project 6 – 5 votes: Main Street at Grayson Avenue
 Project 29 – 5 votes: Spring Street at Valley View Avenue  Project 35 - 5 votes: Pope Street at Allison Avenue
Votes for crossing improvements were more evenly distributed across projects/locations compared to the other two activity boards and their associated projects, leading to no clear priorities. However, Pope Street from Chiles Avenue to Allison Avenue was consistently identified as an unsafe location across all activities, with the intersection of Pope Street at Allison Avenue voted as one of the top priority locations for crossing improvements, highlighting the need for improvements in this area.

Additional Feedback and Themes
• The primary feedback focused on school-aged children and highlighted the need for improved crossings along routes to and from local schools.
• Improving safety, crossings, and pedestrian access along Pope Street was highlighted, with particular attention to the many children who walk to and from St. Helena Montessori School. Lighting was noted as an improvement that could improve crossing safety.
17 Spring Mtn Rd from Madrona Ave to Dean York Ln
18 Spring St from Sylvaner Ave to Oak Ave 1 3 4
19 Sylvaner Ave from Spring St to Madrona Ave
20 Adams St from Railroad Ave to Allyn Ave
21 Birch Ave from Crane Ave to Valley View St
22 Church St from Hunt Ave to Pope St
23 Edwards St from Hunt Ave to Pope St 1 2 3
24 Hunt Ave from Church St to Starr Ave 1 1
25 McCorkle Ave from Allison Ave to McCorkle Ave Path
26 Mitchell Dr from Main St to Crane Ave 1 1
27 Oak Ave from Hillview Pl to Madrona Ave
28 College Ave from Pope St to end of College Ave 1 1
29 Elmhurst Ave from Spring Mtn Rd to Main St
30 Hillview Pl from Spring Mtn Rd to Oak Ave
31 Mariposa Ln from Pope St to McCorkle Ave
32 Crane Ave from Spring St to Birch Ave
33 Valley View from Spring St to Birch Ave 1 1
34 Adams St extension from Starr Ave to Silverado Trl 1 1 35 Allison Ave extension to Mills Ln
36 College Ave extension to Mills Ln
37 Mills Ln extension to Silverado Trl
38 Oak Ave extension to Grayson 8 8
39 Pratt Ave Bridge
Agenda Item #13.1.

• Some participants noted that certain streets could benefit from traffic calming treatments to slow vehicles and make it safer to cross, including Madrona Avenue, Pope Street, and Spring Street.

Proposed Crossing Improvements Activity Board.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Proposed Crossing Improvements Farmer’s
Market
Harvest
Festival
Total
Votes
1* Main St at Elmhurst Ave 1 1
2* Main St at Crinella Ct 4 4
3 Main St at Fulton Ln/Madrona Ave 1 1 2
4 Main St at 1000 Main
5* Main St at Charter Oak Ave 3 3
6 Main St at Grayson Ave 5 5
7 Pope St at Starr Ave 4 4
8* Pope St at Paseo Grand Drive 4 4
9 Hunt Ave and Starr Ave
10 Hunt Ave at Edwards St 1 1
11 Hillview Pl at Middle School
12* Hillview Pl at Kearney St
13 Hillview Pl at Spring Mountain Rd 2 2 4
14 Madrona Ave at Oak Ave 1 1
15* Madrona Ave at Kearney St 1 1
16 Madrona Ave at Stockton St 1 1
17 Madrona Ave at Allyn Ave 1 1
18 Pine St at Oak Ave
19 Adams St at Oak Ave 1 1
20* Adams St at Kearney St
21 Adams St at Stockton St
22 Adams St at Allyn Ave
23 Spring St at Oak Ave 1 1 2
24 Spring St at Kearney St
25 Spring St at Stockton St
26 Spring St at Crane Ave 1 1
27 Spring St at Allyn Ave 1
28 Spring St at Hudson Ave 2 2 4
29 Spring St at Valley View Ave 2 3 5
30 Grayson Ave at High School Entrance
31 Grayson Ave at S Crane Ave 1 1
32* Valley View Ave at Olive Ave 1 1
33 Spring Mountain Rd at Elmhurst Ave 1 1
34 Pratt Ave at Main St 2 2
35 Pope St at Allison Ave 5 5
36 Spring Mtn Rd at Spring Mtn Ct 1 1
37 Pope St at Edwards St 1 1
Agenda Item #13.1.

Key Feedback: Proposed Roadway Extension and Bridge Realignment Projects The project team asked participants to identify which proposed roadway extension and bridge realignment projects were their top priorities. The main goals of the roadway extension and bridge realignment projects are to improve roadway circulation, particularly to support population growth, and to provide sufficient evacuation routes out of the city. A tally of the total votes for each project is presented on the following page. The three projects that garnered the most community support include:
 Project 9 – 27 votes: Pope Street Bridge Realignment
 Project 1 – 17 votes: Adams Street Extension to Silverado Trail  Project 7 – 15 votes: Oak Avenue Extension to Grayson Avenue Many participants commented on the Pope Street Bridge as a significant bottleneck in the street network, with frequent congestion and traffic backups due to the extremely narrow roadway and visibility challenges. There was strong support for addressing this issue without compromising the bridge’s historic character. Nearly all participants favored the City’s most recent proposal to repurpose the existing bridge for pedestrian and bike traffic and construct a new bridge for vehicles. However, some noted that the bridge is not commonly used by pedestrians and bicyclists due to a lack of connections and destinations east of Silverado.

Participants also expressed interest in extending Adams Street, emphasizing the need for additional circulation and connection points to handle increased traffic expected from the Hunter Subdivision project. Additionally, many participants noted that enhancing connections on the city’s east side was generally a priority, noting the lack of connectivity as a contributor to congestion throughout the network.

The Oak Avenue extension was another popular project, with participants viewing it primarily as a bike and pedestrian project that would offer a safer route for school-age children traveling to school, avoiding Main Street, which currently feels unsafe for walking and biking.

Additional Feedback and Themes
• Some participants were concerned about truck routing and the need to address this in all extension projects.
• Many participants felt that extending Starr Avenue or Allison Avenue would improve vehicular flow by allowing Vintage Avenue to serve as a turn-off from Main Street to access the east side of the city. This would enable drivers coming from the south to bypass Main Street traffic that would otherwise continue until Charter Oak Avenue.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Proposed Roadway Extension and Bridge Realignment Projects Farmer’s Market
Harvest
Festival
Total
Votes
1 Adams St extension to Silverado Trl 7 10 17
2 Starr Ave extension north to Adams St 2 3 5
3 Allison Ave extension to Mills Ln 2 3 5
4 Starr Ave extension to Mills Ln 1 1
5 College Ave extension to Mills Ln 1 4 5
6 Mills Ln extension to Silverado Trl 1 5 6
7 Oak Ave extension to Grayson Ave 4 11 15
8 Pratt Ave Bridge realignment 4 4
9 Pope St Bridge realignment 11 16 27
Summary
The feedback from Phase 1 will be instrumental in refining the project team's recommendations to better align with community needs and project goals. Additionally, feedback will help prioritize which projects should receive greater consideration for advancement, focusing on those that resonate most with stakeholders and offer the highest potential impact. This prioritization will guide the project team's next steps, enabling efforts and resources to be concentrated on projects with strong support and alignment with the objectives.

Proposed Roadway Extension and Bridge Realignment Activity Board Agenda Item #13.1.

PHASE 2 – PRIORITY PROJECTS + DRAFT CONCEPTUAL
DESIGNS:

November 2024 – April 2025
The following summarizes the outreach and engagement efforts for Phase 2 of St. Helena Streets Master Plan, with a focus on key findings collected during a community workshop.

The primary goals of Phase 2 were to:
• Provide a high-level refresher of the project purpose, scope, and timeline • Present the priority projects, including initial conceptual design • Collect feedback on the priority project concepts, including what is working well and what may need improvement
Engagement included the following key questions:
• What transportation and streetscape projects or improvements do you think should be prioritized for the city?
• Are there any challenges you face while navigating the city, and what changes would you like to see to address them?
• Which aspects of the city’s current transportation and mobility infrastructure do you value and believe should be maintained?
Engagement Techniques and Key Findings
The following provides a detailed summary of the engagement techniques and findings from Phase 2:

Active Transportation Steering Committee (ATSC) and City Council Meetings On December 4, 2024, the project team presented to the Active Transportation Steering Committee (ATSC), followed by a Special City Council meeting on December 11, 2024. Both meetings served as an introduction and update on the project, providing an overview of the plan’s vision, key opportunities and constraints, and a summary of the prioritized, network-wide projects. These priorities reflected significant community input gathered throughout the planning process. During the presentations, the groups were asked to consider two key questions:
• Whether they agreed with the list of priority projects by type — including bikeways, crossings, and roadway extension or bridge projects.
• If not, what changes or refinements they would recommend.

Overall, there was general agreement with the prioritized list of projects among both groups. Feedback focused primarily on refinements and implementation considerations rather than major changes to priorities.

General feedback included several recurring themes. Members expressed concern about the feasibility and financing plan, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that the proposed projects could realistically be executed and completed. There was also discussion about the sample size of public input, with some suggesting that the City share the engagement link more broadly to increase participation.

Participants noted Measure U as a potential new opportunity to fund projects through bond financing. Others recommended conducting prioritization after cost estimates were developed to ensure a more informed decisionAgenda Item #13.1.

making process. Additionally, it was shared that the Bike Coalition had recently completed a bike network connectivity priority assessment that may be relevant to the work of the Streets Master Plan. Among the top-priority connections identified in the assessment were Pope Street, Madrona Avenue, and Adams Street.

In-Person Public Workshop
An in-person public workshop was held on April 30, 2025, from 5:30 to 7:00 PM at the Carnegie Building (1360 Oak Avenue, St. Helena, CA). Leading up to the event, the project team developed and distributed outreach materials, including a flyer, social media graphics, and an email script, which were shared through the City’s social media channels and email listservs to advertise the meeting and encourage participation.

This meeting served as the second major engagement touchpoint with the community. The session included a presentation followed by an open discussion, during which participants could review conceptual designs and the prioritized project list in more detail. The presentation focused on network-wide recommendations that align with the City’s broader transportation vision, as well as conceptual designs for the Adams Street Extension and Spring Street Streetscape projects.

Six community members attended the workshop. Attendees were generally supportive of the proposed designs, particularly those for Spring Street, which emphasize traffic calming and pedestrian safety. Discussion highlighted the community’s desire to slow vehicle speeds, and the proposed inclusion of speed humps was received positively as a practical response to this concern.

For the Adams Street Extension, participants raised questions about connectivity to adjacent land uses, noting that the proposed segment would be elevated atop the levee along the city’s north end. There was interest in exploring how this elevated portion could better connect to and relate with nearby properties and uses, ensuring that it supports accessibility and integration within the broader transportation network.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Agenda Item #13.1.

PHASE 3 – FINAL CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS + DRAFT PLAN
April 2025 – March 2026
The following summarizes the outreach and engagement efforts for Phase 3 of St. Helena Streets Master Plan, with a focus on presenting the draft plan to the public for review and comment before final plan adoption.

The primary goals of Phase 3 were to:
• Preview the draft plan’s structure, organization, and key content with the Active Transportation Steering Committee (ATSC)
• Provide the public with an opportunity to review the full draft plan and appendices • Collect feedback on the draft recommendations prior to final revisions and City Council adoption Engagement included the following key questions:
• What transportation and streetscape projects or improvements do you think should be prioritized for the city?
• Are there any challenges you face while navigating the city, and what changes would you like to see to address them?
• Which aspects of the city’s current transportation and mobility infrastructure do you value and believe should be maintained?
Engagement Techniques and Key Findings
The following provides a detailed summary of the engagement techniques and findings from Phase 3:

Active Transportation Steering Committee (ATSC) Draft Plan Preview In December 2025, the project team met with the Active Transportation Steering Committee (ATSC) to preview the contents and organization of the draft Streets Master Plan prior to its public release. This meeting provided committee members with an early look at the structure of the document and how the plan’s recommendations, network priorities, and supporting analysis were presented.

The discussion focused on ensuring the plan clearly communicated the project’s goals, recommended network improvements, and implementation strategy. Committee members also discussed how they would review the document once released and coordinate their comments to the consultant team to provide clear and consolidated feedback during the public review period.

Public Draft Plan Review Period
Following the ATSC preview, the City opened a public review period for the draft Streets Master Plan from January 22 to February 16. During this time, the full draft plan and supporting appendices were made available through an online virtual PDF, allowing community members to review the document and submit comments. A collated list of all comments can be found in Appendix A of this document.

The public review period was advertised through multiple City communication channels to maximize awareness and participation, including:
• City newsletter
• City homepage
• Public Works homepage
• Streets Master Plan project webpage
• City social media channels
Agenda Item #13.1.

A total of 68 comments were received during the review period. Of these, 46 comments (approximately 68 percent) were submitted by a single individual. All other participants submitted between one and six comments each.

Key Themes from Public Comments
Public comments during the draft review period focused on several recurring topics related to the proposed network and design recommendations. Major themes included:
• Questions and feedback regarding the bike network and facility selection, including the use of Class I, II, and III bikeway types.
• Interest in daylighting enforcement to improve visibility and safety at intersections. • Requests for bulb-outs and curb extensions at key intersections to enhance pedestrian safety and shorten crossing distances.
• Concerns about sidewalk conditions and ADA-compliant surfaces, with participants emphasizing the need to prioritize accessibility improvements.
• Questions regarding cost estimates for Class I and Class II projects, particularly related to feasibility and implementation
• Concerns about the potential loss of on-street parking along Spring Street associated with proposed improvements.

Active Transportation Steering Committee (ATSC) Review of Public Feedback Following the close of the public comment period, the project team reconvened with the Active Transportation Steering Committee in early March to review the feedback received and discuss proposed responses and adjustments to the draft plan. During this meeting, the committee reviewed key themes from public comments and discussed potential refinements to the proposed network. Based on this discussion, the ATSC recommended updating Madrona Avenue from a Class II bikeway to a Class III facility, reflecting both public feedback and committee input regarding the most appropriate facility type for the corridor.

The committee also discussed the proposed roadway extension and bridge projects included in the plan. ATSC members provided recommendations for how these projects should be prioritized and evaluated as part of the City’s long-term transportation strategy and offered guidance that would ultimately be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Feedback from this session informed the final refinements to the Streets Master Plan before it was presented to the City Council for adoption.

Agenda Item #13.1.

St. Helena Streets Master Plan
Public Engagement Summary
Appendix A
Agenda Item #13.1.

St. Helena SMP 2 Public Engagement Summary, Appendix A
St. Helena Farmer’s Market October 18, 2024 - Completed Activity Board Agenda Item #13.1.

St. Helena SMP 3 Public Engagement Summary, Appendix A
St. Helena Farmer’s Market October 18, 2024 - Completed Activity Board Agenda Item #13.1.

St. Helena SMP 4 Public Engagement Summary, Appendix A
St. Helena Farmer’s Market October 18, 2024 - Completed Activity Board Agenda Item #13.1.

St. Helena SMP 5 Public Engagement Summary, Appendix A
Hometown Harvest Festival October 19, 2024 - Completed Activity Board Agenda Item #13.1.

St. Helena SMP 6 Public Engagement Summary, Appendix A
Hometown Harvest Festival October 19, 2024 - Completed Activity Board Agenda Item #13.1.

St. Helena SMP 7 Public Engagement Summary, Appendix A
Hometown Harvest Festival October 19, 2024 - Completed Activity Board Agenda Item #13.1.

PDF
page #
Section Comment
1 Cover I think this is an excellent plan for St Helena.

1. On page 26, should the entitled Farmstead hotel project be included? 1 Cover Please use the much needed extension of Adams Street to the Trail as an opportunity to design an aesthetically welcoming eastern entrance to St. Helena rather than simple street ingress/egress layout. Examples such as signage, decorative medium divider, and landscaping should be considered in the design development phase and budget. P. Scott 1 Cover I am commenting on the yellow raised bumps which are not only irritating , but dangerous for handicapped people. Have you noticed how people avoid them. They are slippery when wet; impossible to navigate with a walker, wheel chair, cane or grocery cart. 1 Cover 2. The extension of Adams to the Trail is a definite priority and I hope the City's incremental cost to plan this project is included Iin the long-range planning work the Finance Committee is doing. And a multi-year time frame is added to any strategic planning process. 1 Cover 3. It would be could to begin public awareness of any major changes now so people get use to the idea. Most won't read this document in detail so including segments of info early and often wherever possible could be beneficial. 1 Cover Approved
1 Cover I realize these projects are intended to improve quality of life but what would really improve our lives is drinkable water. Our lives would be dramatically improved if we no longer had to drink and buy bottled water. Should we not prioritize a most basic human necessity like water over bike lanes and things of this nature?
3 Executive Summary Remove the class II bike lanes on Spring from Valley View west to Sylvaner and stripe them to be consistent with the rest of Spring.

Because of the narrow geometry vehicles traveling west are in the bike lane most of the time even if there is no on coming traffic. That bike lane is not safe for bikes. The map shows that this section of Spring should be a class III, the same as the rest of Spring to Oak. 4 Executive Summary Is the funding cost for Adams St. Class III paid for by the Vine trail folks and the city? Is Caltrans paying for the cross walk improvements on Main Street? 4 Executive Summary Are walking paths included in the Master Plan? An example is the path at the end of Paulson Ct connecting to Chiles Avenue and Miely Park. Another is the unpaved path from the middle of Hunt to the Adams dead end. 4 Executive Summary Clarify that the cost listed for the Adams St Class I from Railroad to Silverado is the entire road extension project, not just the Class I. It makes it seem like the Class I alone costs $59 million. 5 Executive Summary The dollar figures for some of these projects are ridiculous and indicate to me that some of these 'dreamscapes' will never be built. The same group of protesters will stop things in their tracks and insist the CM be ousted and blamed for these expensive efforts when we have water issues and sidewalks to fix.
8 Project Overview I support the Draft Streets Master Plan, especially its emphasis on safer walking and biking. Highway 29 currently divides the community, and improved crossings — including highly visible crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and refuge islands — are essential so residents, seniors, children (locals and visitors) can safely navigate our city. I also encourage the City to prioritize basic street maintenance. Neighborhood streets such as Sulfur Springs Avenue have deteriorated pavement that creates hazards for cyclists and pedestrians. Finally I support the long-term extension and bridge projects to create a better network and reduce congestion of Main Street.
10 Project Overview The extra crosswalk proposed is only 30 feet from the existing crosswalk on the east side of Kerany at Spring Street. It is unecessary. In addition, the curb extension to connect with the new crosswalk would eliminate a parking space. That parking space is heavily utilized daily, but especially during events from the churches and the Native Sons. Now that the Spring Grove project has been approved, parking on Spring Street will only increase, which is why the curb extension will exacerbate the problem.

Richard Corsetti
10 Project Overview I live at the intersection of Spring Street and Kearny. The extra crosswalk is unnecessary as proposed. The curb extension on the south side of Spring removes a parking spot. As it is Spring Street at that intersection is highly used for the churches and the Native Sons events. It will only intensify further if the hated Spring Grove project is built. 24 Existing Conditions Street diagram shows bike lanes, not bike boulevards, so the option of including bike lanes should be included in the description. 24 Existing Conditions The description for Regional Collector is limiting by stating that this street “supports cars, transit, and truck traffic,” and excludes any active transportation, given that these are the most direct routes and sometimes unavoidable, as identified by the plan itself. These should have more separated, higher quality bike facilities if anything. 25 Existing Conditions Please delete the “proposed path” through my private property at the end of Fulton ln. It is NOT proposed and encourages trespassing through my property. I went through a great deal of trouble the last time this was falsely published and passed around at bike shops. 26 Existing Conditions Include Class IV separated bikeways in Bike Facility Classifications. Though they aren’t proposed for any streets in this plan, important to keep the tool in your toolbox. Should be included so people know they are an option and they aren’t kept off the table in future discussions/studies, especially for streets and road extensions that don’t have a bike facility designation yet. 28 Existing Conditions Existing conditions on Sidewalk Network should include information about the poor quality and displacement of existing sidewalks throughout the City, as that is a commonly cited concern for pedestrians St. Helena Streets Master Plan
January 2026 Draft Plan – Public Comment Summary

02.20.2026
Agenda Item #13.1.

30 Existing Conditions Grocery stores should also be considered in key destinations 33 Existing Conditions Spring Street going west beyond City limit on to White Sulphur Springs needs to be evaluated and included. 34 Existing Conditions Crossing Assessment should include need for and recently passed state law regarding daylighting. 36 Existing Conditions Key for Bicycle LTS labels roads as “arterial & collector” instead of Low or High LTS 38 Existing Conditions When space gets constrained, the first solution tends to be to downgrade the bike facilities to shared-road facilities, even if that is not the lowest-stress or what is planned for the street – see Oak Avenue Vine Trail alignment, Spring Street discussions, and the Class III portions of South Crane and Grayson for examples. How can the City be better equipped to shift space away from vehicles and to appropriate bicycle facilities when the need calls for it? 38 Existing Conditions Connectivity Needs Assessment should include gaps in bicycle network in its key challenges 39 Existing Conditions Shared micromobility services should be integrated with accompanying education to avoid increasing unsafe road user behavior.

Should also follow infrastructure improvements so that there are safe and comfortable facilities for these users to use to avoid unintentionally increasing road user conflicts (for example, e-scooters on sidewalks because road does not feel safe) 43 Network-wide
Recommendations
Madrona from Hudson to Riesling is narrow. Suggest class III instead of bike lanes (class II) 43 Network-wide
Recommendations
Include application of bike lane buffers and rumble strips on Silverado Trail for any Silverado Trail segment that falls under City jurisdiction where this is feasible
43 Network-wide
Recommendations
Update College Ave to proposed Class I by widening existing sidewalk – the Montessori School has expressed interest in better, more separated bike facilities from Pope to the school and many kids & parents are not going to feel safe/comfortable bike on a Class III to the Montessori during drop-off period
43 Network-wide
Recommendations
Are Class IIs realistic on Allyn & Hudson? With residences, unlikely that parking will be removable to make space. Might be better to make a Class III bike boulevard with traffic-calming. These are neighborhood streets that should be slowed down, especially as both motorists use them as cut-throughs and bicyclists use them to get to quieter side street routes. 43 Network-wide
Recommendations
Elmhurst – Consider a Class II/Class III combo given steep incline, which could benefit from a separated space for bicyclists, especially given connection to Vine Trail
43 Network-wide
Recommendations
Pratt Avenue along the Vine Trail alignment should be Class I, not Class II. 44 Network-wide
Recommendations
Show proposed Class I path on Spring Street on the map and in the list of projects. Do not remove existing Class II bike lanes on Spring Street. If there are verified issues coming up around those bike lanes, try to adjust and problem solve before just removing bike lanes. 44 Network-wide
Recommendations
Entire Pope Street corridor needs improvement, but it is only listed for a Class I from Starr to Silverado Trail and no other upgrades. This plan mentions earlier that bike facilities would be upgraded to Class I for entire corridor, but it isn’t shown in proposed bike facilities.

Also, existing facilities map shows Class II bike lanes where there are Class IIIs. 45 Network-wide
Recommendations
General comment on ADA requirements at crosswalks. The yellow raised bumps are very irritating to those in wheel chairs. There needs to be a smoother alternative to this while keeping it's purpose intact, presumably to help blind folks. 45 Network-wide
Recommendations
Fill Oak Ave Class III gap for continuous access to middle school 45 Network-wide
Recommendations
Fill bicycle facilities gap between where Class IIs are shown to end on Madrona and Vine Trail access on Fulton 45 Network-wide
Recommendations
There should also be a proposed Class I on Mills according to other plans. 45 Network-wide
Recommendations
Existing Class IIs on Starr Ave are not shown
46 Network-wide
Recommendations
No mention in plan of the realignment of Mills Lane with Grayson Ave to create a new four-way intersection, which has significant implications given the high school and proposed housing 46 Network-wide
Recommendations
Main at Vintage Ave needs crossing improvements with future Vine Trail installation given walkability from high school and location of pediatrician and orthodontist
46 Network-wide
Recommendations
Main at Pratt needs bulb-outs and/or traffic-calming/gateway treatment for southbound traffic coming in at higher speeds 47 Network-wide
Recommendations
Hunt & Edwards – include bulb-outs to help improve crossing and traffic-calm Hunt 47 Network-wide
Recommendations
Add bulb-outs at Hillview at the middle school entrance – painted curb extensions show desire for this improvement 47 Network-wide
Recommendations
Pope & Starr needs vegetation management to improve RRFB visibility 47 Network-wide
Recommendations
#11 crossing at main/1000 main. Why needed. Close to Charter oak crossing 47 Network-wide
Recommendations
Crossing improvements needed at Main & Grayson with Mills realignment, given upcoming Farmstead hotel project and Our Town St Helena affordable housing project going in. Crosswalks needed on all four legs of intersection, as well as sidewalk connection to intersection on south side of realigned Mills (on north end of affordable housing project). 47 Network-wide
Recommendations
I live on Chiles Ave. and the situation the potential for a severe crash is huge when trying to turn left from Chiles Avenue onto Pope Street if there cars parked on Pope Street anywhere near the intersection. I couldn't find any reference to extending the red curbs along this stretch of road adjacent to the intersection even with the 20 feet of it as per the new law. But, quite frankly, 20 feet is not enough given the situation and likelihood of being struck by a car when trying to inch one's way safely from Chiles Avenue onto Pope Street. 48 Network-wide
Recommendations
Supportive of bulb-outs at Spring & Kearney for traffic-calming and improved pedestrian visibility at uncontrolled crosswalk 48 Network-wide
Recommendations
Spring & Valley View – add curb extensions
Agenda Item #13.1.

48 Network-wide
Recommendations
Curb extensions at Madrona and Kearney need to be extended 48 Network-wide
Recommendations
Adams & Oak should not be listed as not needing any improvements. We hear a lot of concern about this intersection given how heavily travelled it is and its vicinity to elementary school & downtown. Will also be a key intersection in Vine Trail alignment. Frequently hear and see people not stopping at stop signs. Should receive treatment like curb extensions or a raised intersection. 49 Network-wide
Recommendations
There is desire for Hillview and Kearney to have bulb-outs given the paint put down there. Should not be listed as no improvements needed.
49 Network-wide
Recommendations
Adams and Kearney – need to improve sightlines at crosswalks across Adams. Right now cars can park in loading zone or curbside too close to crosswalks especially in an elementary school zone. Need to add red curb or bulb-out. 49 Network-wide
Recommendations
Fill bicycle facilities gap between where Class IIs are shown to end on Madrona and Vine Trail access on Fulton 50 Network-wide
Recommendations
More bike traffic should be expected and accommodated crossing Silverado Trail at Pope with Howell Mountain Road segment being converted to bike/ped trail. Especially with plans discussed in Appendix to realign Pope Street to be a single intersection with Silverado Trail and Howell Mountain Road. The trail will not be adding parking so bicyclists will be directly accessing. 57 Implementation Surprised at how low Main at Pratt is on prioritization – maybe this should be re-evaluated given NVTA Michelin Mobility Intelligence Road Safety Risk Report (2025) results, which identify this area as high-risk for vulnerable road users and motorists due to high traffic volumes, unsignalized crossings, and aggressive driving behaviors. They recorded frequent high-speed and severe braking events in this area.
58 Implementation Address how roadway extension projects impact City General Plan goals around reducing VMT. 59 Implementation Why are cost ranges only shown for bicycle facilities and not for other proposed projects in this plan? Show all cost ranges to provide complete context of what potential costs of projects.
59 Implementation Cost ranges for bike facilities way too high, particularly for Class I and Class II. There may be some exceptional projects that are higher than the average cost, but the lower end of the cost range should definitely be lower. 68 Transitioning from a sidepath to slightly wider sidewalks closer to downtown will need to include a transition plan for bicyclists.

Otherwise, bicyclists will continue on the sidewalk because it’s more comfortable and separated and they may not know that it has shifted to a sidewalk rather than a sidepath.
69 Valley View to Hudson – narrow travel lanes to 10.5’ and give that extra foot to the shared-use path. As much space as possible on the sidepath is necessary for safe and comfortable sharing between pedestrians, kids on bikes, and less confident bicyclists. 69 Spring St shared-use sidepath is going to need to be identifed as usable by bicyclists and pedestrians, given the unconventional street design of the corridor with the sidepath and two sidewalks 70 We support the Kearney/Spring intersection improvements – will help calm Spring St traffic and improve pedestrian visibility and safety, as well as removing a parking space that shouldn’t be used due to its visibility obstruction. 70 I live on Spring Street at the Kearny intersection. I disagree with the need to add another crosswalk to the one already existing. I also disagree with the curb extension. That would eliminate a parking spot. Parking is already a 71 The Adams St extension will place a new roadway on top of the city owned and operated levee. So, my questions are 1) If the Adams Extension Project costs $60 million, and the levee fails, who will pay for the road to be replaced? And, who will be liable for the cost of the actual levee failure, levee replacement and property damage to the Hunter proposed project homes, Vineyard Valley and Hunt's Grove. (Presently, the City of St Helena took ALL financial liability for the levee in CA State Assembly Bill 1898). Question 2: The funding St Helena recieved to construct the levee required the City to not use any part of the project for municipal purposes, bc the the funding was granted on the basis of Flood Control Use only. How is the City going to get approval for using part of the levee for municipal purposes? Question 3: What is the process to get the private property owner on the east side of the river to grant right of way for the bridge and how much will that cost the City to purchase it or pay for eminent domain? 77 Plan should make it very clear that the diagrams of the proposed Oak Ave extension project are outdated and should not be used as guidance – 4-foot bike lanes on a street with 12’ travel lanes would NOT be considered best practice today. Strongly oppose suggestions from previous, outdated plans that recommend a 40-mph speed limit; this extension should match the character of the existing Oak Avenue and neighborhoods around it. Plan should also recommend option of making extension a Class I shared-use path only if full road extension is not feasible.

Agenda Item #13.1.

St Helena Streets Master Plan
Appendix C
Project Prioritization Methodology +
Detailed Results
Agenda Item #13.1.

November 11, 2024
To: Joseph Leach, City of St. Helena
From: Anjulie Palta and Lauren Pepe, Toole Design
Project: St. Helena Streets Master Plan
Re: Project Prioritization Methodology
All recommendations in the Streets Master Plan will take time and resources to implement. Recognizing funding and capacity constraints, as well as feasibility challenges, recommended infrastructure projects will be prioritized through a data-driven process, informed by public input. Bicycle facility, pedestrian crossing, bridge realignment, and road extension projects will be prioritized based on the criteria summarized in the table below and explained further on the following pages. Each project will receive points based on each criterion, with total points determining their relative ranking. Bicycle/pedestrian projects rely on different criteria than road/bridge projects.

The results of prioritization will help the project team develop an implementation plan and timeline with high, medium, and low priority projects. This process will also enable the team to strategically select a handful of highimpact initiatives to advance into conceptual design. By identifying top-priority projects, the team can focus on those with the greatest potential to benefit the community and achieve key project goals. This approach ensures that resources are allocated efficiently, concentrating efforts on projects that deliver the most meaningful impact and establishing a clear foundation for phased, effective progress.

Prioritization Overview
Prioritization
Criterion
Description Score
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
Access Prioritizing access to community-identified
destinations with a specific emphasis on schools and
parks
Yes (2 points) or No (0 points)
Safety Prioritizing safety needs based on where crashes have occurred in the past
High (2 points), Medium (1 point), or
Low (0 points)
Connectivity
and Comfort
Prioritizing projects that fill gaps in the bicycle
and pedestrian networks
High (2 points) or Medium (1 point)
Community
Support
Prioritizing locations with strong
public/stakeholder support
High (2 points) or Low/No (0 points)
Bonus: Activity Prioritizing locations that currently have high levels of bicycle and pedestrian activity
Yes (1) or No (0)
Road Extension and Bridge Realignment Projects
Feasibility Prioritizing projects that do not have significant feasibility challenges
Yes (2 points) or No (0 points)
Community
Support
Public/stakeholder support High (2 points) or Low/No (0 points) Agenda Item #13.1.

2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Prioritization Criteria The following methodology was developed for ranking bicycle facility and crossing improvement projects.

Access
This criterion scores projects based on how well they improve access to schools, parks, and community facilities.

Score
(Points)
Metric
High (2) Project is directly adjacent to a school, major park, or community center Medium (1) Project is located within walking distance (0.25 mi) of a school, major park, or community center Low (0) Project is not located within walking distance (0.25 mi) of school, major park, or community center Safety
Projects located near recent crash sites (per 2019-2024 crash data) may address key safety issues in St. Helena.

Score
(Points)
Metric
High (2)
Project located within 100’ of the site of:
• One fatal or severe bicycle or pedestrian crash; or
• Two or more bicycle or pedestrian crashes, regardless of severity Medium (1) Project located within 100’ of the site of one non-fatal/severe bicycle or pedestrian crash Low (0) No crashes occurred within 100’ of project site Connectivity
This criterion evaluates whether a project fills a gap in the network (and thus improves bicycle/pedestrian connectivity) or improves the quality of an existing bikeway or crossing. Projects that fill critical gaps in the network receive slightly more points than those that enhance existing infrastructure.

Score
(Points)
Metric
High (2) Project fills a gap in bicycle or pedestrian network (i.e. new bikeway where it does not currently exist or
Medium (1) Project enhances existing infrastructure
Community Support
Projects that address locations identified by community members as top priorities through public engagement receive two points, projects that received some support receive one point, and projects that received no community support receive 0 points. Project support will be quantified based on feedback received on the engagement boards presented to the St. Helena community during October 2024 engagement events.

Agenda Item #13.1.

3 Score
(Points)
Metric
High (2) Project scored among top-priority projects
Medium (1) Project received some support, but didn’t rank among top priorities Low (0) Project received no support
Bonus Point: Activity
Bicyclist and pedestrian count data was collected at select locations throughout the city as part of this planning process. Projects within 100’ of a location with high relative pedestrian/bicyclist counts receive one bonus point as this demonstrates an area where improvements may benefit the most people. This criterion is only worth one point as it is limited only to the places where count data was collected.

Score
(Points)
Metric
Yes (1) Project within 100’ of location with relatively high bicyclist/pedestrian counts No (0) Project not within 100’ of location with relatively high bicyclist/pedestrian counts Agenda Item #13.1.

4 Roadway Extension and Bridge Realignment Project Prioritization Criteria The following methodology was developed for ranking road extension and bridge realignment projects.

Feasibility
Some of the road extension and bridge projects may require acquisition of privately owned land and therefore may not be realistic options for implementation. Projects that do not require the acquisition of private land receive 1 point.

It should be noted that ultimately all road/bridge projects will involve complexity and will have varying constraints, such as need for an EIR.

Community Support
Projects that address locations identified by community members as top priorities through public engagement receive two points, projects that received some support receive one point, and projects that received no community support receive 0 points. Project support will be quantified based on feedback received on the engagement boards presented to the St. Helena community during October 2024 engagement events.

Score
(Points)
Metric
High (2) Project scored among top-priority projects
Medium (1) Project received some support, but didn’t rank among top priorities Low (0) Project received no support
Score
(Points)
Metric
Yes (1) Project does not require acquisition of private land No (0) Project requires acquisition of private land
Agenda Item #13.1.

Project Location Start End Access Safety
Connect/
Comfort
Community
Support Activity Total Proposed Facility
Sulphur Creek Trail Sulphur Springs Ave Napa River 2 1 2 2 7 Class I Shared-Use Path Napa River Trail City limit near WWTP City Limits (Deer Park Rd/Lower Reservoir Trl) 2 0 2 2 6 Class I Shared-Use Path S Crane Ave Grayson Ave Sulphur Springs Ave 2 0 2 1 1 6 Class II Bike Lanes Adams St Railroad Ave Allyn Ave 2 0 2 1 1 6 Class III Bike Boulevard Adams St extension Starr Ave Silverado Trl 2 1 2 1 6 TBD Crane Park Path (to La Quinta Way) Grayson Ave Kennedy Ct 2 0 2 1 5 Class I Shared-Use Path Library Lane Path Adams St Vine Trail (along RR corridor) 2 0 2 1 5 Class I Shared-Use Path College Ave Pope St Proposed class I @ SE end of College Ave 2 0 2 1 5 Class III Bike Boulevard McCorkle Ave Path McCorkle Ave cul-de-sac College Ave 2 0 2 0 4 Class I Shared-Use Path Pope St Starr Ave Silverado Trail 2 0 1 1 4 Class I Shared-Use Path Starr Ave Path extension Adams St Extension Mills Ln 1 0 2 1 4 Class I Shared-Use Path York Creek Path Spring Mountain Rd Vine Trail 1 0 2 1 4 Class I Shared-Use Path Grayson Ave Primary School driveway Highway 29 (Main St) 2 0 1 1 4 Class II Bike Lanes Madrona Ave- Riesling Way Main St Sylvaner Ave 1 0 2 1 4 Class II Bike Lanes Spring St White Sulphur Sp Rd at city limit Oak Ave 1 0 2 1 4 Class III Bike Boulevard Spring Mtn Rd Dean York Ln Madrona Ave 2 0 2 0 4 Class II Bike Lanes Elmhurst Ave Spring Mountain Rd Main St 2 0 2 0 4 Class III Bike Boulevard Edwards St Hunt Ave Pope St 1 0 2 1 4 Class III Bike Boulevard Hillview Pl Spring Mountain Rd Oak St 2 0 2 0 4 Class III Bike Boulevard Hunt Ave Church St Starr Ave 1 0 2 1 4 Class III Bike Boulevard Mitchell Dr Main St Crane Ave 1 0 2 1 4 Class III Bike Boulevard Valley View St Spring St Birch St 1 0 2 1 4 Class III Bike Boulevard Oak Ave extension to Grayson Mitchell Dr Grayson Ave 1 0 2 1 4 TBD Lower Reservoir Loop Trail NW city limit Loop Lower Reservoir + connect to Spring Mtn Rd 0 0 2 1 3 Class I Shared-Use Path Mills Ln Main St/SR 29 Proposed class I facility annex from Starr Ave 1 0 2 0 3 Class II Bike Lanes Allyn Ave Spring St Madrona Ave 0 0 2 1 3 Class II Bike Lanes Hudson Ave Madrona Ave Spring St 1 0 2 0 3 Class II Bike Lanes Birch Ave Crane Ave Valley View St 1 0 2 0 3 Class III Bike Boulevard Church St Hunt Ave Pope St 1 0 2 0 3 Class III Bike Boulevard Hunt Ave Railroad Ave Church St 1 0 2 0 3 Class III Bike Boulevard Mariposa Ln Pope St McCorkle Ave 1 0 2 0 3 Class III Bike Boulevard McCorkle Ave Alison Ave Proposed class I facility 675' west of College Ave 1 0 2 0 3 Class III Bike Boulevard N Crane Ave Spring St Birch St 1 0 2 0 3 Class III Bike Boulevard Oak Ave Hillview Pl Madrona Ave 1 0 2 0 3 Class III Bike Boulevard Railroad Ave Adams St Hunt Ave 1 0 2 0 3 Class III Bike Boulevard Railroad Ave Fulton Ln Hunt Ave 1 0 2 0 3 Class III Bike Boulevard College Ave extension to Mills Ln Terminus of College Ave Mills Ln 1 0 2 0 3 TBD Mills Ln extension to Silverado Trl Mills Ln Silverado Trl 1 0 2 0 3 TBD Pratt Ave Railroad Main St/SR 29 0 0 2 0 2 Class II Bike Lanes Sulphur Springs Rd S Crane Ave Main St/SR 29 0 0 2 0 2 Class II Bike Lanes Sylvaner Ave Riesling Way Spring St 0 0 2 0 2 Class II Bike Lanes Chaix Ln Main St/SR 29 Napa River Trail (proposed) 0 0 2 0 2 Class III Rural Bike Route Pratt Ave RR track/Vine Trail at Pratt Ave Napa River Trail (proposed) 0 0 2 0 2 Class III Rural Bike Route Spring Mountain Rd St Helena city limit (West) Dean York Ln 0 0 2 0 2 Class III Rural Bike Route Sulphur Springs Ave St Helena city limit Spring St 0 0 2 0 2 Class III Rural Bike Route Sulphur Springs Ave Sulphur Creek Crane Ave 0 0 2 0 2 Class III Rural Bike Route Allison Ave extension to Mills Ln Charter Oak Ave Mills Ln 0 0 2 0 2 TBD BUCKET

HIGH RANKING PROJECTS

MEDIUM HIGH RANKING PROJECTS

PROPOSED BIKE FACILITIES
Agenda Item #13.1.

PROPOSED CROSSINGS
Intersection Access Safety
Connect/
Comfort
Community
Support Activity Total
Main St at Grayson Ave 2 1 1 2 6
Pope St at Allison Ave 1 1 1 2 5
Hillview Pl and Spring Mountain Rd^ 2 0 1 2 5
Main St at Crinella Ct^+ 1 0 1 2 4
Main St at Madrona Ave*^+ 1 1 1 1 4
Main St at Adams St+ 1 2 1 0 4
Main St at Spring St* 1 2 1 0 4
Pope St at Starr Ave 1 0 1 2 4
Hillview Pl at Middle School 2 0 1 0 1 4
Spring St at Hudson Ave 0 0 2 2 4
Grayson Ave at Crane Ave 2 0 1 1 4
Main St at Elmhurst Ave^+ 1 0 1 1 3
Main St at Pine St+ 2 0 1 0 3
Main St at Charter Oak Ave 0 1 1 1 3
Pope St at Mariposa Ln 2 0 1 0 3
Hunt Ave and Railroad Crossing 1 0 2 0 3
Hunt Ave at Edwards St 1 0 1 1 3
Madrona Ave and Oak Ave* 1 0 1 1 3
Madrona Ave at Stockton St 1 0 1 1 3
Madrona Ave at Allyn Ave* 0 0 2 1 3
Spring St at Oak Ave* 1 0 1 1 3
Spring St at Crane Ave* 0 0 2 1 3
Spring St and Valley View Ave 0 0 1 2 3
Spring Mountain Rd at Spring Mountain Ct 1 0 2 0 3
Spring Mountain Rd at Elmhurst Ave^ 1 0 1 1 3
Valley View Ave at Olive Ave 1 0 1 1 3
Main St at Pratt Ave+ 1 0 1 0 2
Main St at Hunt Ave^+ 1 0 1 0 2
Main St at Pope St 1 0 1 0 2
Main St at Mitchell Dr 1 0 1 0 2
Main St at 1000 Main 0 0 2 0 2
Pope St at Edwards St 1 0 1 0 2
Hunt Ave at Church St 1 0 1 0 2
Pine St and Oak Ave 1 0 1 0 2
Adams St at Stockton St 1 0 1 0 2
Adams St at Allyn Ave 1 0 1 0 2
Spring St at Kearney St* 1 0 1 0 2
Spring St at Stockton St 1 0 1 0 2
Hunt Ave and Starr Ave 0 0 1 0 1
Spring St at Allyn Ave 0 0 1 0 1
BUCKET

HIGH RANKING PROJECTS

MEDIUM HIGH RANKING PROJECTS
Agenda Item #13.1.

PROPOSED ROADWAY EXTENSION + BRIDGE PROJECTS
Project Feasibility
Community
Support
Functional
Road
Classification
Total
Adams St extension to Silverado Trl 1 2 2 5
Pope St Bridge realignment 0 2 2 4
Oak Ave extension to Grayson Ave 0 2 2 4
Starr Ave extension north to Adams St 1 1 1 3
Mills Ln extension to Silverado Trl 0 1 2 3
Pratt Ave Bridge realignment 0 1 2 3
Starr Ave extension to Mills Ln 0 1 1 2
Allison Ave extension to Mills Ln 0 1 0 1
College Ave extension to Mills Ln 0 1 0 1
BUCKET

HIGH RANKING PROJECTS

MEDIUM HIGH RANKING PROJECTS
Agenda Item #13.1.

METHODOLOGY
Prioritization Criterion Description Score
Access Project directly adjacent to school, park, or community facility 2 Project within 0.25 mi of school, park, or community facility 1 Safety Project located within 100’ of 1 fatal or severe bicycle or pedestrian crash; or 2+ bicycle or pedestrian crashes, regardless of severity 2 Project located within 100’ of the site of one non-fatal/severe bicycle or pedestrian crash 1 Connectivity and Comfort Project fills a gap in bicycle or pedestrian network (i.e. new bikeway where it does not currently exist or 2 Project enhances existing infrastructure 1
Project received some support, but didn’t rank among top priorities 1 Bikeway project within 100’ of location with relatively high bicyclist counts Pedestrian project within 100' of location with relatively high pedestrian counts Feasibility Projects without significant feasibility (i.e., will not require the taking of private property, or trigger environmental review) receive 2 points; otherwise, 0 points
2 Community Support Project scored among top-priority projects 2 Project received some support, but didn’t rank among top priorities 1 Functional Road
Classification Project will provide a new or realigned connection to an arterial road 2 Project will provide a new or realigned connection to a collector road 1 Project will provide a new or realigned connection to a local road 0 Road Extension and Bridge Realignment Projects
Community Support Project scored among top-priority projects Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
2 Bonus: Activity 1
Agenda Item #13.1.

St Helena Streets Master Plan
Appendix D
Network-wide Cost Opinions
Agenda Item #13.1.

St. Helena SMP Proposed Bicycle Facilities-Cost Opinions Mar-26
Costs are based on 2024 Caltrans Cost data escalated to 2026 dollars. Bicycle Facilitiy cost opinions do not include costs related to design fees, environmental, drainage, and utility impacts.

Score Street/Trail Name Begins Ends Length
(Mi.) Low cost High cost
$ 580,000.00 $ 3,160,000.00
3 Allyn Ave Spring St Madrona Ave 0.34 $ 197,200.00 $ 1,074,400.00 6 S Crane Ave Grayson Ave Sulphur Springs Ave 0.45 $ 261,000.00 $ 1,422,000.00 4 Grayson Ave Primary School driveway Highway 29 (Main St) 0.50 $ 290,000.00 $ 1,580,000.00 3 Hudson Ave Madrona Ave Spring St 0.32 $ 185,600.00 $ 1,011,200.00 3 Mills Ln Main St/SR 29 Proposed class I facility annex from Starr Ave 0.50 $ 290,000.00 $ 1,580,000.00 4 Spring Mtn Rd Dean York Ln Madrona Ave 0.39 $ 226,200.00 $ 1,232,400.00 2 Sulphur Springs Rd S Crane Ave Main St/SR 29 0.50 $ 290,000.00 $ 1,580,000.00 2 Sylvaner Ave Riesling Way Spring St 0.30 $ 174,000.00 $ 948,000.00 $ 780,000.00 $ 1,800,000.00
6 Adams St Railroad Ave Allyn Ave 0.47 $ 366,600.00 $ 846,000.00 3 Birch Ave Crane Ave Valley View St 0.15 $ 117,000.00 $ 270,000.00 3 Church St Hunt Ave Pope St 0.13 $ 101,400.00 $ 234,000.00 5 College Ave Pope St Proposed class I facility at SE end of College Ave 0.18 $ 140,400.00 $ 324,000.00 4 Elmhurst Ave Spring Mountain Rd Main St 0.23 $ 179,400.00 $ 414,000.00 4 Edwards St Hunt Ave Pope St 0.15 $ 117,000.00 $ 270,000.00 4 Hillview Pl Spring Mountain Rd Oak St 0.14 $ 109,200.00 $ 252,000.00 3 Hunt Ave Railroad Ave Church St 0.02 $ 15,600.00 $ 36,000.00 4 Hunt Ave Church St Starr Ave 0.42 $ 327,600.00 $ 756,000.00 4 Madrona Ave- Riesling Way Main Street Sylvaner Ave 1.03 $ 803,400.00 $ 1,854,000.00 3 Mariposa Ln Pope St McCorkle Ave 0.14 $ 109,200.00 $ 252,000.00 3 McCorkle Ave Alison Ave Proposed class I facility 675' west of College Ave 0.29 $ 226,200.00 $ 522,000.00 4 Mitchell Dr Main St Crane Ave 0.44 $ 343,200.00 $ 792,000.00 3 N Crane Ave Spring St Birch St 0.23 $ 179,400.00 $ 414,000.00 3 Oak Ave Hillview Pl Madrona Ave 0.10 $ 78,000.00 $ 180,000.00 3 Railroad Ave Adams St Hunt Ave 0.11 $ 85,800.00 $ 198,000.00 3 Railroad Ave Fulton Ln Hunt Ave 0.21 $ 163,800.00 $ 378,000.00 4 Spring St Sylvaner Ave White Sulphur Spring Rd 0.18 $ 140,400.00 $ 324,000.00 4 Valley View St Spring St Birch St 0.20 $ 156,000.00 $ 360,000.00 4 Spring St Valley View St Oak Ave 0.56
Vine Trail Fulton Ln (begins) Main St/SR 29 (ends) 0.72 N/A N/A 2 Chaix Ln Main St/SR 29 Napa River Trail (proposed) 1.07 2 Pratt Ave Main St/SR 29 Napa River Trail (proposed) 0.71 2 Spring Mountain Rd St Helena city limit (West) Dean York Ln 0.69 2 Sulphur Springs Ave St Helena city limit Spring St 0.16 2 Sulphur Springs Ave Sulphur Creek Crane Ave 0.93
$ 7,220,000.00 $ 7,220,000.00
The primary data source for the bicycle projects listed below was the 2019 NVTA Countywide Bicycle Plan. Limited refinements have been incorporated to reflect more recent planning efforts, including updates to the Sulphur Creek Class I Trail extents consistent with the General Plan Update 2040 Bike Network exhibit, the reclassification of Madrona from a Class II to a Class III facility, and other minor adjustments.Facilities previously proposed for Main Street/Highway 29 prior to the implementation of the Vine Trail (including Class II and Class III facilities) have been excluded from the list below; furthermore, any facilities proposed for Main Street will require coordination with the Downtown Specific Plan.

Class I Shared-Use Path
$ 300,000.00
$ 321,000.00
$ 213,000.00
$ 207,000.00
$ 48,000.00
$ 279,000.00
Cost opinion
Class II Bike Lanes
Class III Bike Boulevard
Class III Rural Bike Route
$ 3,129,120.00
Agenda Item #13.1.

5 Crane Park Path (to La Quinta Way) Grayson Ave Sulphur Springs Ave 0.50 $ 3,610,000.00 N/A 5 Library Lane Path Adams St Vine Trail (along RR corridor) 0.13 $ 938,600.00 N/A 3 Lower Reservoir Loop Trail NW city limit Loop around Lower Reservoir to connect to Spring Mountain Rd 1.25 $ 9,025,000.00 N/A
4 McCorkle Ave Path McCorkle Ave cul-de-sac College Ave 0.14 $ 1,010,800.00 N/A high cost 6 Napa River Trail St Helena city limit near
wastewater treatment plant St Helena city limit (Deer Park Rd / Lower Reservoir Trail) 3.04 N/A $ 21,948,800.00 4 Pope St Starr Ave Silverado Trail 0.41 $ 2,960,200.00 N/A Vine Trail (Pratt Ave) RR Main St/SR 29 0.26 N/A N/A
Vine Trail (Railroad) Pratt Ave Fulton Ln 0.33 N/A N/A
4 Starr Ave Path Adams Ave (pending future
extension) Mills Ln 0.84 $ 6,064,800.00 N/A
high cost 7 Sulphur Creek Trail Sulphur Springs Ave Napa River 2.19 N/A $ 15,811,800.00 Vine Trail (excluding Class III segment,
above) St Helena City Limits (South) St Helena City Limits (North) 2.44 N/A N/A 4 York Creek Path Spring Mountain Rd Main St (Vine Trail) 0.33 $ 2,382,600.00 N/A 6 Adams St (pending future extension) Railroad Ave Silverado Trail 0.84 2 Allison Avenue (pending future extension) Charter Oak Ave Mills Ln 0.21 N/A N/A 3 College Ave (pending future extension) McCorkle Ave Path Mills Ln 0.24 N/A N/A Main St Pratt Ave Mitchell Dr 0.76 N/A N/A
3 Mills Ln (pending future extension) Starr Ave Silverado Trail 0.51 N/A N/A 4 Oak Ave (pending future extension) Mitchell Dr Grayson Ave 0.42 N/A N/A Facility Type to Be Determined
See separate cost opinion
Agenda Item #13.1.

St. Helena SMP Proposed Crossing Improvements
Mar-26
Costs are based on 2024 Caltrans Cost data escalated to 2026 dollars. Crossing improvement cost opinions do not include costs related to design fees, environmental, drainage, and utility impacts.

Score Intersection Existing Conditions Proposed Improvements Item Quantity Itemized Cost Subtotal Cost (2024 dollars)
Construction
Contingency
Escalation
Years Escalation Total Cost (2026 dollars)
2 Main St at Pratt Ave+
High-visibility crosswalk on south approach; high-visibility crosswalk and stop sign on minor approach; curb ramps
have detectable warning surfaces
Install high-visibility crosswalk on north approach High-visibility crosswalk 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 20% 2 7% $ 4,200 High-visibility crosswalk 3 $ 9,000
Signs 4 $ 1,480
RRFB 1 $ 15,000
Signs 4 $ 1,480
High-visibility crosswalk 4 $ 12,000
Curb extensions 4 $ 21,600
Curb ramps 8 $ 12,000
High-visibility crosswalk 4 $ 12,000
Curb ramps 8 $ 12,000
RRFB 1 $ 15,000
High-visibility crosswalk 4 $ 12,000
Curb ramps 8 $ 12,000
Curb extensions 4 $ 21,600
High-visibility crosswalk 3 $ 9,000
Curb ramps 6 $ 9,000
Curb extensions 4 $ 21,600
RRFB 3 $ 45,000
Curb extensions 4 $ 21,600
Curb ramps 6 $ 9,000
High-visibility crosswalk 3 $ 9,000
Curb ramps 6 $ 9,000
Curb extensions 4 $ 21,600
High-visibility crosswalk 3 $ 9,000
Curb ramps 6 $ 9,000
Curb extensions 4 $ 21,600
2 Main St at 1000 Main+ Currently no crossing here Consider installing a crossing to improve pedestrian connectivity, reduce block lengths, and slow speeds. High-visibility crosswalk 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 20% 2 7% $ 4,200 20% 2 7% $ 54,500
7% $ 54,500
20% 2 7% $ 103,900
20% 2 7% $ 54,500
20% 2 7% $ 14,400
20% 2 7% $ 22,700
20% 2 7% $ 62,700
20% 2 7% $ 53,600
20% 2 7% $ 62,700
20% 2
$ 45,600
$ 39,000
$ 45,600
$ 39,600
$ 75,600
$ 39,600
$ 39,600
$ 10,480
$ 16,480
Signalized intersection; standard crosswalk on minor
approach only; curb ramps not ADA-compliant
Ensure high-visibility crosswalks on all approaches
(note that north approach of this intersection is
south approach of SR29/Pope St intersection); install
3 Main St at Elmhurst
Ave^+
Standard crosswalk on south approach; standard
crosswalk and stop-sign on minor approach; “slight” curb extensions; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces; RRFB.

Ensure high-visibility crosswalks on all approaches
and advanced warning sign for RRFB
4 Main St at Crinella
Ct^+
High-visibility crosswalk on all approaches; stop sign on minor approach; curb ramps have detectable warning
surfaces
Install RRFB with advanced warning signs on either
north or south approach
Install curb extensions and RRFB on southeast
approach; upgrade all curb ramps to be ADAcompliant
High-visibility crosswalk and stop sign or minor approach; high-visibility crosswalk on southeast approach; curb
ramps not ADA-compliant
4 Main St at Spring St*+
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility; upgrade
curb ramps to be ADA-compliant; install curb
extensions on both sides of Main St crossings
Signalized intersection; standard crosswalks; curb ramps not ADA-compliant 4 Main St at Adams St+
Install high-visibility crosswalk on north approach;
upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant; install
curb extensions on all approaches
High-visibility crosswalk and stop sign on minor approach; high-visibility crosswalk on south approach; curb ramps not ADA-compliant
2 Main St at Hunt Ave^+
4 Main St at Madrona
Ave*^+
Signalized intersection; standard crosswalks; curb ramps not ADA-compliant
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility; upgrade
curb ramps to be ADA-compliant; install curb
extensions
3 Main St at Pine St+
Standard crosswalks on all approaches except north; stop signs on minor approaches; curb ramps not ADAcompliant Ensure high-visibility crosswalks on all approaches;
upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant; install
RRFB on either north or south approach
2 Main St at Pope St+ Signalized intersection; standard crosswalks on all approaches except south; curb ramps not ADA-compliant
Ensure high-visibility crosswalks on all approaches;
upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant; install
curb extensions on both sides of Main St crossings
2 Main St at Mitchell Dr+
Agenda Item #13.1.

High-visibility crosswalk 3 $ 9,000
Curb ramps 4 $ 6,000
RRFB 1 $ 15,000
6 Main St at Grayson Ave
Signalized intersection; standard crosswalk on minor
approach (no sidewalk/train tracks only on east side of street); curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces
Upgrade crosswalk to high visibility High-visibility crosswalk 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 20% 2 7% $ 4,200 5 Pope St at Allison Ave
Stop-controlled crossing on minor approach (across
Allison Ave) with high-visibility crosswalk with ADAcompliant ramps; no crossing across Pope St because there no sidewalk on north side and limited visibility at curve makes crossing dangerous.

Crossing cannot be installed here due to limited
visibility and ROW constraints. Install speed
reduction treatments on both approaches of Pope St
at Allison Ave. Consider vegetation management to
improve visibility.

Speed hump 2 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 20% 2 7% $ 19,300
3 Pope St at Mariposa Ln Stop control and standard crosswalk on minor approach; high-visibility crosswalk on southwest approach Install RRFB (Jacob Meily Park access) RRFB 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 20% 2 7% $ 20,700 High-visibility crosswalk 3 $ 9,000
Curb ramps 6 $ 9,000
High-visibility crosswalk 1 $ 3,000
Curb ramps 6 $ 9,000
High-visibility crosswalk 4 $ 12,000
Segmental Divider 20 $ 1,600
High-visibility crosswalk 3 $ 9,000
Curb ramps 6 $ 9,000
High-visibility crosswalk 3 $ 9,000
Signs 1 $ 370
Curb ramps 6 $ 9,000
2 Hunt Ave at Church St
High-visibility crosswalk and stop sign on Railroad Ave approach; stop sign with no crosswalk at Church St
approach; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces
Install high-visibility crosswalk at Church St, just
east of the railroad tracks; upgrade Church
crosswalk to high-visibility
High-visibility crosswalk 2 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 20% 2 7% $ 8,300 High-visibility crosswalk 1 $ 3,000
Curb ramps 2 $ 3,000
Curb extensions 2 $ 10,800
RRFB 1 $ 15,000
Signs 8 $ 2,960
Curb extensions 4 $ 21,600
High-visibility crosswalk 4 $ 12,000
Curb ramps 8 $ 12,000
High-visibility crosswalk 4 $ 12,000
Curb ramps 8 $ 12,000
Curb extensions 4 $ 21,600
20% 2 7% $ 62,700
20% 2 7% $ 25,300
20% 2 7% $ 43,700
20% 2 7% $ 66,800
20% 2 7% $ 16,500
20% 2 7% $ 18,700
20% 2 7% $ 24,800
20% 2 7% $ 41,300
20% 2 7% $ 24,800
$ 30,000
$ 18,000
$ 12,000
$ 13,600
$ 18,000
$ 18,370
$ 31,800
$ 45,600
$ 48,560
3 Madrona Ave and Oak
Ave*
All-way stop control with standard crosswalks;
noncompliant curb ramps
Upgrade crosswalks to be high-visibility and upgrade
curb ramps to ADA-compliant; extend red curb to
daylight the intersection; install curb extensions on
all corners
4 Hillview Pl at Middle
School Standard crosswalk; one ramp not ADA-compliant Upgrade to high-visibility crosswalk and upgrade ramp to be ADA-compliant; install RRFB
5 Hillview Pl and Spring
Mountain Rd^
Stop control on minor approaches; standard crosswalks;
curb ramps not ADA-compliant
Install stop-control on all approaches and curb
extensions on all corners, upgrade all crosswalks to
high visibility, and upgrade all curb ramps to be ADAcompliant 3 Main St at Charter Oak
Ave+
High-visibility crossing with RRFB on north approach; stop control on minor approaches with standard crosswalk on
west approach and no crosswalk on east approach; most
curb ramps not ADA-compliant
Ensure high-visibility crosswalks on all approaches
and upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant.

Modernize RRFB and/or install PHB (PHB already in
City’s CIP and dependent on private development
funding)
Stop-controlled on all legs; no crosswalks; curb ramps
missing and existing one is noncompliant
Install high-visibility crosswalks at both stop signs
and ensure ADA-compliant curb ramps are present
at all crossings
3 Hunt Ave at Edwards St
High-visibility crosswalk on west and south approaches; stop sign on south (minor) approach; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces Install high-visibility crosswalk on east approach 3 Hunt Ave and Railroad
Crossing Not ADA-compliant; poor visibility
Upgrade crossing to be ADA-compliant. Add vertical
delineation or otherformalized separation on west side of railroad tracks between tracks and Railroad Avenue to
shorten crosswalk across the parking spaces. Remove the two parking stalls immediately adjacent to the crosswalk to improve pedestrian visibility.
1 Hunt Ave and Starr Ave
2 16. Pope St at Edwards
St
High-visibility crosswalk on north approach across
Edwards; stop-controlled crossing on minor approach (no crosswalk); ramps not ADA-compliant
Install high-visibility crosswalk on minor approach
and upgrade ramps to be ADA-compliant. If crossing
is not installed at Allison Ave, consider installing
RRFB at this location instead.
4 Pope St at Starr Ave
High-visibility crosswalks on major approaches; standard crosswalk on minor approach; RRFB on west approach;
one curb ramp not ADA-compliant
Ensure all crosswalks are high-visibility and that all
curb ramps are ADA-compliant
Agenda Item #13.1.

High-visibility crosswalk 4 $ 12,000
Curb ramps 8 $ 12,000
3 Madrona Ave at Allyn
Ave*
No crosswalks; stop control on minor approach; curb
ramps have detectable warning surfaces
Install high-visibility crosswalk on minor approach
and across the SW approach on Madrona Ave High-visibility crosswalk 3 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 20% 2 7% $ 12,400 High-visibility crosswalk 4 $ 12,000
Curb ramps 8 $ 12,000
High-visibility crosswalk 4 $ 12,000
Curb ramps 8 $ 12,000
2 Adams St at Allyn Ave All-way stop control with no crosswalks; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces Upgrade crosswalks to be high visibility High-visibility crosswalk 4 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 20% 2 7% $ 16,500 High-visibility crosswalk 3 $ 9,000
Curb ramps 6 $ 9,000
High-visibility crosswalk 3 $ 9,000
Curb ramps 6 $ 9,000
4 Grayson Ave at Crane
Ave
All-way stop control; high-visibility crosswalk across
Grayson Ave; curb ramps have detectable warning
surfaces
None – there are currently no sidewalks on the rural
side of Crane Ave $ - 20% 2 7% $ -
3 Valley View Ave at
Olive Ave
Stop control on minor approach; standard crosswalks on
minor approach and across SE approach of Valley View
Ave; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces
Upgrade crosswalks to high visibility High-visibility crosswalk 3 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 20% 2 7% $ 12,400 Pope St at Paseo
Grand Drive
High-visibility crosswalks on all approaches except
vineyard entrance (standard crosswalk); RRFB on north
approach; stop control on minor approaches; curb ramps
have detectable warning surfaces
None NO COST OPINION NEEDED
Adams St at Oak Ave All-way stop control with high-visibility crosswalks and curb ramps with detectable warning surfaces None NO COST OPINION NEEDED Madrona Ave and
Kearney St
Stop control on minor approaches, high visibility
crosswalks, curb extensions; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces
None NO COST OPINION NEEDED
Adams St at Kearney St All-way stop control with high-visibility crosswalks; ADAcompliant curb ramps None NO COST OPINION NEEDED Hillview Pl at Kearney
St
High-visibility crosswalks; stop control on minor
approach; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces
None; however curb extensions may be considered
pending configuration study. NO COST OPINION NEEDED
Grayson Ave at High
School Entrance
High-visibility crosswalk and RRFB; curb ramps have
detectable warning surfaces None NO COST OPINION NEEDED 3 Spring St and Valley
View Ave
Stop control and standard crosswalk on minor approach;
high-visibility crosswalk on NE approach and noncompliant ramp on Spring St Install RRFB on NE approach and upgrade curb ramp
to be ADA-compliant; upgrade standard crosswalk to
high visibility

NO COST OPINION NEEDED
4 Spring St at Hudson Stop control on minor approach; missing curb ramps; no Install high-visibility crosswalks on minor approach NO COST OPINION NEEDED 1 Spring St at Allyn Ave Stop control and high-visibility crosswalk on minor approach; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces Install high-visibility crosswalk on NE approach NO COST OPINION NEEDED 3 Spring St at Crane Ave* Stop control and no crosswalk on minor approach; non- Upgrade curb ramp to be ADA-compliant. Install high- NO COST OPINION NEEDED 2 Spring St at Stockton St Stop control and high-visibility crosswalk on minor approach; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces Install high-visibility crosswalk on NE approach NO COST OPINION NEEDED 2 Spring St at Kearney
St*
Stop control and high-visibility crosswalk on minor
approach; high-visibility crosswalk on NE approach; two ramps are not ADA-compliant and one does not exist
Install ADA-compliant ramps at all crossings NO COST OPINION NEEDED 3 Spring St at Oak Ave* All-way stop control with standard crosswalks on three of Ensure high-visibility crosswalks exist on all NO COST OPINION NEEDED 20% 2 7% $ 33,000
20% 2 7% $ 24,800
20% 2 7% $ 24,800
20% 2 7% $ 33,000
20% 2 7% $ 33,000
All-way stop control with standard crosswalks; curb ramps either non-compliant or missing
Upgrade crosswalks to be high-visibility and upgrade
curb ramps to ADA-compliant
$ 18,000
$ 18,000
$ 24,000
$ 24,000
$ 24,000
3 Spring Mountain Rd at
Elmhurst Ave^
Stop control and standard crosswalk on minor approach
and high-visibility crosswalk on southeast approach; all curb ramps either missing or non-compliant
Install high-visibility crosswalk on minor approach,
ADA-compliant curb ramps, and curb extensions
3 Spring Mountain Rd at
Spring Mountain Ct
Three-legged intersection with stop control on two of the approaches; no crosswalks nor curb ramps present
Install high-visibility crosswalk and ADA-compliant
curb ramps on east approach.
2 Pine St and Oak Ave All-way stop control with standard crosswalks; noncompliant curb ramps
Upgrade crosswalks to be high-visibility and upgrade
curb ramps to ADA-compliant
2 Adams St at Stockton
St
3 Madrona Ave at
Stockton St
No crosswalks; stop control on minor approach; one curb ramp not ADA-compliant
Install high-visibility crosswalk on minor approach
and across the NE approach on Madrona Ave; ensure
all curb ramps are ADA-compliant
Crossings that are included in the Spring St concept cost opinion Crossings that were reviewed and that do not need improvements Agenda Item #13.1.

PER MILE COSTS BY

BICYCLE FACILITY CLASSIFICATION
The following pages provide backup documentation for the calculation of per-mile costs by bicycle facility type. These unit costs were used to develop planning-level estimates for each discrete proposed bicycle facility. For every recommended segment, the appropriate facility type, and corresponding low- or high-cost treatment, was assigned and then multiplied by the relevant per-mile cost to generate a segment-level estimate.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St Helena Streets Master Plan
Per Mile Cost Opinion
Mar-26
Table 1: Planning-Level Per-Mile Costs
Low Cost High Cost Low Cost Description High Cost Description Class I $ 7,220,000 $ 7,220,000
Replace existing 5' sidewalk to 12'
shared use path + 5' physical barrier
along curb line
Class I next to river or creek
Class II $ 580,000 $ 3,160,000 Eradicate existing markings and stripe bike lanes
Resurface street and stripe bike
lanes
Class III - Bike Boulevard $ 780,000 $ 1,800,000
Shared lane pavement markings and
signage. Only speed humps, signing and
striping
Shared lane pavement markings and
signage. Speed humps, signing,
striping, and traffic circles every third
intersection
Class III - Rural Bike Route $ 300,000 Shared lane pavement markings and signage Facility Type
Rounded Per Mile Cost Estimate
(Presented in 2026 dollars)
Table 1 shows planning-level bikeway per mile cost estimates. Cost estimates are based on the unit cost and soft cost values provided in the Master Unit & Soft Costs tab (based primarily on available Caltrans 2024 data).

Refer to the following tabs for detailed assumptions for each facility type This cost opinion was developed in October 2025 and the ENR Construction Cost index is 15,459 This cost opinion was developed in October 2025. The latest National Highway Construction Cost index for Q1 2025 is 3.167 Agenda Item #13.1.

Assumptions
Continuous raised path on one side, 2 intersections each end 2 intersections bike lane symbol every 250' x2 for two way
Roadway section 4 lanes
Street curb to curb width 56 ft
Average side street width 56 ft
Width of shared use path 12 ft
Pavement depth 6 inches
Pavement material Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)
14' wide crosswalks, 24" lines, 5' spacing 313.6 sf
Unidirectional curb ramps per intersection 8 ramps
2 D11-1 signs per intersection
Total Class I length 5280 ft
CALTRANS ITEM DESRIPTION ITEM NOTES UNIT UNIT COST (2024) QUANTITY TOTAL COST DEMOLITION INCLUDES EXCAVATION, ALL CONCRETE REMOVAL, AND REPROFCY $ 240.00 3324.44 $ 797,866.67 INSTALL CONCRETE K-RAIL LF $ 65.00 5280.00 $ 343,200.00 HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A) 0 TON $ 220.00 2370.13 $ 521,429.33 REMOVE THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE REMOVE EXISTING THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF $ 3.00 26400.00 $ 79,200.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (BROKEN YELLOW) 6" BROKEN YELLOW LF $ 4.00 5280.00 $ 21,120.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 28) DETAIL 28 (6" SOLID DOUBLE YELLOW LINES) LF $ 5.00 5280.00 $ 26,400.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (BROKEN 17-7) DETAIL 8 (6" BROKEN WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 10560.00 $ 42,240.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 39) DETAIL 39 (6" SOLID WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 10560.00 $ 42,240.00 GREEN THERMOPLASTIC PAINT CONFLICT MARKINGS SQFT $ 19.50 1344.00 $ 26,208.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (BROKEN 8-4) DETAIL 39A (6"BROKEN WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 896.00 $ 3,584.00 THERMOPLASTIC CROSSWALK AND PAVEMENT MARKING HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK SQFT $ 20.00 2509 $ 50,176.00 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB RAMP) ASSUMING 1 CY PER UNIDIRECTIONAL CURB RAMP CY $ 1,500.00 16.00 $ 24,000.00 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB AND GUTTER) LF $ 160.00 5280.00 $ 844,800.00 LANDSCAPE SF $ 15.00 26400.00 $ 396,000.00
Material Cost Subtotal $ 3,218,464.00
Mobilization 5% $ 160,923.20
Traffic Control 5% $ 160,923.20
Construction Cost Contingency 20% $ 643,692.80
Utility Contingency 5% $ 160,923.20
Drainage Contingency 5% $ 160,923.20
Environmental Contingency 5% $ 160,923.20
Subtotal $ 1,448,308.80
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 4,666,772.80
Engineering and Design Costs 15% $ 700,015.92
Construction Management 20% $ 933,354.56
Subtotal $ 1,633,370.48
Total Cost/Mile (2024 dollars) $ 6,300,143.28
Total Cost/Mile (2026 dollars) Years: 2 7% $ 7,213,034.04 Rounded Cost/Mile $ 7,220,000.00
Actual costs may vary based on project scope and current market conditions.

Caltrans maintains historical cost indices and forecast at:

Class I
Unit prices per recent Bid Items on Caltrans Contract Cost Data.

All costs adjusted to 2026 dollars.

Replace existing 5' sidewalk to 12' shared use path + 5' physical barrier along curb line Agenda Item #13.1.

Assumptions
Continuous raised path, 2 intersections each end 2 intersections bike lane symbol every 250' x2 for two way
Roadway section 4 lanes
Street curb to curb width 56 ft
Average side street width 56 ft
Width of shared use path 12 ft
Pavement depth 6 inches
Pavement material Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)
14' wide crosswalks, 24" lines, 5' spacing 313.6 sf
Unidirectional curb ramps per intersection 8 ramps
2 D11-1 signs per intersection
Total Class I length 5280 ft
CALTRANS ITEM DESRIPTION ITEM NOTES UNIT UNIT COST (2024) QUANTITY TOTAL COST DEMOLITION INCLUDES EXCAVATION, ALL CONCRETE REMOVAL, AND REPROFCY $ 240.00 3324.44 $ 797,866.67 INSTALL CONCRETE K-RAIL LF $ 65.00 5280.00 $ 343,200.00 HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A) 0 TON $ 220.00 2370.13 $ 521,429.33 REMOVE THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE REMOVE EXISTING THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF $ 3.00 26400.00 $ 79,200.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (BROKEN YELLOW) 6" BROKEN YELLOW LF $ 4.00 5280.00 $ 21,120.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 28) DETAIL 28 (6" SOLID DOUBLE YELLOW LINES) LF $ 5.00 5280.00 $ 26,400.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (BROKEN 17-7) DETAIL 8 (6" BROKEN WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 10560.00 $ 42,240.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 39) DETAIL 39 (6" SOLID WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 10560.00 $ 42,240.00 GREEN THERMOPLASTIC PAINT CONFLICT MARKINGS SQFT $ 19.50 1344.00 $ 26,208.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (BROKEN 8-4) DETAIL 39A (6"BROKEN WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 896.00 $ 3,584.00 THERMOPLASTIC CROSSWALK AND PAVEMENT MARKING HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK SQFT $ 20.00 2509 $ 50,176.00 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB RAMP) ASSUMING 1 CY PER UNIDIRECTIONAL CURB RAMP CY $ 1,500.00 16.00 $ 24,000.00 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB AND GUTTER) LF $ 160.00 5280.00 $ 844,800.00 LANDSCAPE SF $ 15.00 26400.00 $ 396,000.00

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -

0.00 $ -
Material Cost Subtotal $ 3,218,464.00
Mobilization 5% $ 160,923.20
Traffic Control 5% $ 160,923.20
Construction Cost Contingency 20% $ 643,692.80
Utility Contingency 5% $ 160,923.20
Drainage Contingency 5% $ 160,923.20
Environmental Contingency 5% $ 160,923.20
Subtotal $ 1,448,308.80
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 4,666,772.80
Engineering and Design Costs 15% $ 700,015.92
Construction Management 20% $ 933,354.56
Subtotal $ 1,633,370.48
Total Cost/Mile (2024 dollars) $ 6,300,143.28
Total Cost/Mile (2026 dollars) Years: 2 7% $ 7,213,034.04 Rounded Cost/Mile $ 7,220,000.00
Actual costs may vary based on project scope and current market conditions.

Caltrans maintains historical cost indices and forecast at:

Class I
Unit prices per recent Bid Items on Caltrans Contract Cost Data.

All costs adjusted to 2026 dollars.

Class I next to river or creek
Agenda Item #13.1.

Assumptions
1mile = 5280 ft
Average block distance 400 ft
Estimated total intersections in 1 mile: 13 intersections all-way stop intersections in 1 mile 4 intersections
Signalized intersections in 1 mile 1 intersection
Bike lane markings 4 at each intersection
Street curb to curb width 40 ft
Average side street width 40 ft
10' wide crosswalks, 24" lines, 5' spacing 160 sf
Width of bike lane 6 ft
R81A signs per intersection 2
One travel lane and one bike lane each direction
CALTRANS ITEM DESRIPTION ITEM NOTES UNIT UNIT COST (2024) QUANTITY TOTAL COST ROADSIDE SIGN - ONE POST R81A (BIKE LANE) EA $ 500.00 26 $ 13,200.00 REMOVE THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE REMOVE EXISTING THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF $ 3.00 4752 $ 14,256.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 28) DETAIL 28 (6" SOLID DOUBLE YELLOW LINES) LF $ 5.00 4752 $ 23,760.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 39) DETAIL 39 (6" SOLID WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 9504 $ 38,016.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (BROKEN 8-4) DETAIL 39A (6"BROKEN WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 2112 $ 8,448.00 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING BIKE LANE MARKING SQFT $ 15.00 1230 $ 18,453.60 THERMOPLASTIC CROSSWALK AND PAVEMENT MARKING HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK SQFT $ 20.00 3755 $ 75,093.33 12" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LIMIT LINE (12"SOLID WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 469 $ 1,877.33 GREEN THERMOPLASTIC PAINT CONFLICT MARKINGS SQFT $ 19.50 3168 $ 61,776.00 $ -
$ -
Material Cost Subtotal $ 254,880.27
Mobilization 5% $ 12,744.01
Traffic Control 5% $ 12,744.01
Construction Cost Contingency 20% $ 50,976.05
Utility Contingency 5% $ 12,744.01
Drainage Contingency 5% $ 12,744.01
Environmental Contingency 5% $ 12,744.01
Subtotal $ 114,696.12
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 369,576.39
Engineering and Design Costs 15% $ 55,436.46
Construction Management 20% $ 73,915.28
Subtotal $ 129,351.74
Total Cost/Mile (2024 dollars) $ 498,928.12
Total Cost/Mile (2026 dollars) Years: 2 7% $ 571,222.81 Rounded Cost/Mile $ 580,000.00
Actual costs may vary based on project scope and current market conditions.

Caltrans maintains historical cost indices and forecast at:

Class II
Unit prices per recent Bid Items on Caltrans Contract Cost Data.

All costs adjusted to 2026 dollars.

Eradicate existing markings and stripe bike lanes
Agenda Item #13.1.

Assumptions
1mile = 5280 ft
Average block distance 400 ft
Estimated total intersections in 1 mile: 13 intersections all-way stop intersections in 1 mile 4 intersections
Signalized intersections in 1 mile 1 intersection
Bike lane markings 4 at each intersection
Street curb to curb width 40 ft
Average side street width 40 ft
10' wide crosswalks, 24" lines, 5' spacing 160 sf
Width of bike lane 6 ft
R81A signs per intersection 2
One travel lane and one bike lane each direction
CALTRANS ITEM DESRIPTION ITEM NOTES UNIT UNIT COST (2024) QUANTITY TOTAL COST ROADSIDE SIGN - ONE POST R81A (BIKE LANE) EA $ 500.00 26 $ 13,200.00 COLD PLANE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQYD $ 25.00 23467 $ 586,666.67 HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A) 0 TON $ 220.00 2640 $ 580,800.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 28) DETAIL 28 (6" SOLID DOUBLE YELLOW LINES) LF $ 5.00 4752 $ 23,760.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 39) DETAIL 39 (6" SOLID WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 9504 $ 38,016.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (BROKEN 8-4) DETAIL 39A (6"BROKEN WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 2112 $ 8,448.00 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING BIKE LANE MARKING SQFT $ 15.00 1230 $ 18,453.60 THERMOPLASTIC CROSSWALK AND PAVEMENT MARKING HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK SQFT $ 20.00 3755 $ 75,093.33 12" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LIMIT LINE (12"SOLID WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 469 $ 1,877.33 GREEN THERMOPLASTIC PAINT CONFLICT MARKINGS SQFT $ 19.50 3168 $ 61,776.00 $ -
$ -
Material Cost Subtotal $ 1,408,090.93
Mobilization 5% $ 70,404.55
Traffic Control 5% $ 70,404.55
Construction Cost Contingency 20% $ 281,618.19
Utility Contingency 5% $ 70,404.55
Drainage Contingency 5% $ 70,404.55
Environmental Contingency 5% $ 70,404.55
Subtotal $ 633,640.92
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 2,041,731.85
Engineering and Design Costs 15% $ 306,259.78
Construction Management 20% $ 408,346.37
Subtotal $ 714,606.15
Total Cost/Mile (2024 dollars) $ 2,756,338.00
Total Cost/Mile (2026 dollars) Years: 2 7% $ 3,155,731.38 Rounded Cost/Mile $ 3,160,000.00
Actual costs may vary based on project scope and current market conditions.

Caltrans maintains historical cost indices and forecast at:

Class II
Unit prices per recent Bid Items on Caltrans Contract Cost Data.

All costs adjusted to 2026 dollars.

Resurface street and stripe bike lanes
Agenda Item #13.1.

Assumptions
1mile = 5280 ft
Average block distance 400 ft
Estimated total intersections in 1 mile: 13 intersections all-way stop intersections in 1 mile 4 intersections
Signalized intersections in 1 mile 1 intersection
Street curb to curb width 35 ft
Average side street width 35 ft
Shared lane marking spacing 200 ft
Restriping double yellow at each stop-controlled or signalized leg 50 ft Intersections with proposed traffic circles assumed to include 8 new directional curb ramps each
10' wide crosswalks, 24" lines, 5' spacing 140 sf
D11-1 signs per intersection 2
Total bike route distance 1 mi
CALTRANS ITEM DESRIPTION ITEM NOTES UNIT UNIT COST (2024) QUANTITY TOTAL COST THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING SHARED LANE MARKING, EVERY 200' EACH WAY SQFT $ 15.00 1056 $ 15,840.00 ROADSIDE SIGN - ONE POST D11-1 (BIKE ROUTE) EA $ 500.00 26 $ 13,200.00 THERMOPLASTIC CROSSWALK AND PAVEMENT MARKING HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK SQFT $ 20.00 3024 $ 60,480.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 28) DETAIL 28 (6" SOLID DOUBLE YELLOW LINES) LF $ 5.00 4818 $ 24,090.00 12" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LIMIT LINE (12"SOLID WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 651 $ 2,604.00 REMOVE THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF $ 3.00 4818 $ 14,454.00 Material Cost Subtotal $ 130,668.00
Mobilization 5% $ 6,533.40
Traffic Control 5% $ 6,533.40
Construction Cost Contingency 20% $ 26,133.60
Utility Contingency 5% $ 6,533.40
Drainage Contingency 5% $ 6,533.40
Environmental Contingency 5% $ 6,533.40
Subtotal $ 58,800.60
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 189,468.60
Engineering and Design Costs 15% $ 28,420.29
Construction Management 20% $ 37,893.72
Subtotal $ 66,314.01
Total Cost/Mile (2024 dollars) $ 255,782.61
Total Cost/Mile (2026 dollars) Years: 2 7% $ 292,845.51 Rounded Cost/Mile $ 300,000.00
Actual costs may vary based on project scope and current market conditions.

Caltrans maintains historical cost indices and forecast at:

Class III - Bike Route
Unit prices per recent Bid Items on Caltrans Contract Cost Data.

All costs adjusted to 2026 dollars.

Shared lane pavement markings and signage
Agenda Item #13.1.

Assumptions
1mile = 5280 ft
Average block distance 400 ft
Estimated total intersections in 1 mile: 13 intersections/blocks all-way stop intersections in 1 mile 4 intersections
Signalized intersections in 1 mile 1 intersection
Street curb to curb width 35 ft
Average side street width 35 ft
Shared lane marking spacing 200 ft
Restriping double yellow at each stop-controlled or signalized leg 50 ft Intersections with proposed traffic circles assumed to include 8 new directional curb ramps each
10' wide crosswalks, 24" lines, 5' spacing 140 sf
posts per speed cushion (2 signs per post at each block) 2 D11-1 signs per intersection 2
Total bike boulevard distance 1 mi
CALTRANS ITEM DESRIPTION ITEM NOTES UNIT UNIT COST (2024) QUANTITY TOTAL COST THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING SHARED LANE MARKING, EVERY 200' EACH WAY SQFT $ 15.00 1056 $ 15,840.00 SPEED HUMP EA $ 7,000.00 26 $ 184,800.00
ROADSIDE SIGN - ONE POST D11-1 (BIKE ROUTE) EA $ 500.00 26 $ 13,200.00 ROADSIDE SIGN - ONE POST SPEED CUSHION SIGN EA $ 500.00 26 $ 13,200.00

INSTALL SIGN (STRAP AND SADDLE BRACKET METHOD)
W13-1P (ADVISORY SPEED PLAQUE UNDER SPEED CUSHION
SIGN) EA $ 370.00 26 $ 9,768.00
THERMOPLASTIC CROSSWALK AND PAVEMENT MARKING HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK SQFT $ 20.00 3024 $ 60,480.00 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 28) DETAIL 28 (6" SOLID DOUBLE YELLOW LINES) LF $ 5.00 4818 $ 24,090.00 12" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LIMIT LINE (12"SOLID WHITE LINE) LF $ 4.00 651 $ 2,604.00 REMOVE THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF $ 3.00 4818 $ 14,454.00 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING SPEED HUMP MARKING (2 PER CUSHION) SQFT $ 15.00 634 $ 9,504.00 Material Cost Subtotal $ 347,940.00
Mobilization 5% $ 17,397.00
Traffic Control 5% $ 17,397.00
Construction Cost Contingency 20% $ 69,588.00
Utility Contingency 5% $ 17,397.00
Drainage Contingency 5% $ 17,397.00
Environmental Contingency 5% $ 17,397.00
Subtotal $ 156,573.00
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 504,513.00
Engineering and Design Costs 15% $ 75,676.95
Construction Management 20% $ 100,902.60
Subtotal $ 176,579.55
Total Cost/Mile (2024 dollars) $ 681,092.55
Total Cost/Mile (2026 dollars) Years: 2 7% $ 779,782.86 Rounded Cost/Mile $ 780,000.00
Actual costs may vary based on project scope and current market conditions.

Caltrans maintains historical cost indices and forecast at:

Class III - Bike Boulevard
Unit prices per recent Bid Items on Caltrans Contract Cost Data.

All costs adjusted to 2026 dollars.

Shared lane pavement markings and signage. Only speed humps, signing and striping Agenda Item #13.1.

MASTER UNIT + SOFT COSTS
Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St Helena Streets Master Plan
Per Mile Cost Opinion
Mar-26
Table 1: Materials Unit Costs Table 2: Soft Costs and Contingencies CALTRANS ITEM NO. CALTRANS ITEM DESRIPTION ITEM NOTES UNIT UNIT COST (2024) UNIT COST DATA SOURCE Contingency Percentage 1 DEMOLITION INCLUDES EXCAVATION, ALL CONCRETE
REMOVAL, AND REPROFILING CY $240.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data Engineering and Design Costs 15% 390132 HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A) TON $220.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data Mobilization 5% 730010 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB) LF $140.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data Traffic Control 5% 731504 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB AND GUTTER) LF $160.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data Construction Management 20% 731521 MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK) CY $830.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data Construction Cost Contingency 20% 731623 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB RAMP) ASSUMING 1 CY PER UNIDIRECTIONAL CURB RAMP CY $1,500.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data Utility Contingency 5% 730070 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE SQFT $60.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data Drainage Contingency 5% 250201 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE SUBBASE CY $120.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data Environmental Contingency 5% 840519 THERMOPLASTIC CROSSWALK AND PAVEMENT MARKING HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK SQFT $20.00 City of Glendale North Brand Blvd. Complete Streets Demonstration Project Bid Comparison Escalation to 2026 dollars 7% 840505 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (BROKEN YELLOW) 6" BROKEN YELLOW LF $4.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 840505 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (SOLID WHITE) 6" SOLID WHITE LF $4.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 840530 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (BROKEN 17-7) DETAIL 8 (6" BROKEN WHITE LINE) LF $4.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 840505 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 28) DETAIL 28 (6" SOLID DOUBLE YELLOW LINES) LF $5.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 840505 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DETAIL 39) DETAIL 39 (6" SOLID WHITE LINE) LF $4.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 840507 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (BROKEN 8-4) DETAIL 39A (6"BROKEN WHITE LINE) LF $4.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 840506 8" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE DETAIL 38A (8" SOLID WHITE LINE) LF $4.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 840555 12" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LIMIT LINE (12"SOLID WHITE LINE) LF $4.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 840519 THERMOPLASTIC CROSSWALK AND PAVEMENT MARKING HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK SQFT $15.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 840515 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING SQFT $15.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 846026 REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKING SQFT $20.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 846030 REMOVE THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE REMOVE EXISTING THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF $3.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data
REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKINGS (THERMOPLASTIC) REMOVE CROSSWALK SQFT $3.00 https://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/bids/pdf/RDC0 016284.pdf
820840 ROADSIDE SIGN - ONE POST R81A (BIKE LANE) EA $500.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 820250 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN EA $180.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 820590 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN-ONE POST TRAFFIC CIRCLE STOP SIGN RELOCATION EA $285.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data MODIFYING SIGNAL LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL LS $3,500.00 http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/counterme asures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=12
The unit costs and soft costs/contingencies applied to all cost estimates can be found on this sheet. Unit costs are presented in Table 1, and soft costs/contingencies are in Table 2. These values can be updated, as needed.

Opinions of probable cost were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Contingencies are included to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2024 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from the Caltrans Contract Cost Data. Cost opinions do not include easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting; surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance. A general cost has been assigned to certain general categories such as utility relocations; however, these costs can vary widely depending on the exact details and nature of the work. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. TDG Engineering, Inc. makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction.

Soft Costs and Contingencies
As applicable, contingencies for construction, environmental impacts, drainage, utilities, and design are assumed. Contingencies that vary facility type to facility type are based upon our experience with the complexities of implementing them.

Agenda Item #13.1.

870111 INDUCTIVE LOOP DETECTOR BIKE DETECTION LOOPS EA $1,800.00 La Crescenta Bid Comparison 810170 DELINEATOR (CLASS 1) BOLLARD (K-71) EA $360.00 La Crescenta Bid Comparison 780433 PAINT CURB (2-COAT) RED CURB LF $8.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2 SEGMENTAL DIVIDERS ZEBRA BIKE LANE DIVIDERS / ARMADILLOS EA $80.00 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Cross road_Lab_Quick_Build_04092020.pdf
3 GREEN THERMOPLASTIC PAINT CONFLICT MARKINGS SQFT $19.50 Bid Comparison San Fernando Beautification 4 INSTALL CONCRETE K-RAIL LF $65.00 City of Glendale North Brand Blvd. Complete Streets Demonstration Project Bid Comparison
5 SPEED HUMP EA $7,000.00
https://lacity.primegov.com/meeting/attachment
/406211.pdf?name=Report%20from%20Los%2
0Angeles%20Department%20of%20Transportati
on%20dated%203-31-22
8 TRAFFIC CIRCLE INCLUDES LANDSCAPE. NO RAMPS. EA $100,000.00 AHSC Round 7 Public Works_Transportation Unit Cost Estimates
820860 INSTALL SIGN (STRAP AND SADDLE BRACKET METHOD)
W13-1P (ADVISORY SPEED PLAQUE UNDER
SPEED CUSHION SIGN) EA $370.00 Bid Comparison San Fernando Beautification 9 CURB EXTENSIONS EA $55,000.00 AHSC Round 7 Public Works_Transportation Unit Cost Estimates
398200 COLD PLANE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQYD $25.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 10 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION EA $30,000.00 AHSC Round 7 Public Works_Transportation Unit Cost Estimates
11 PRECAST CONCRETE BUFFER LF $75.00
12 LANDSCAPE SF $15.00
HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK 40' LONG, 10' WIDE EA $3,000.00 SIGNS W13-1P (ADVISORY SPEED PLAQUE UNDER
SPEED CUSHION SIGN) EA $370
RRFB EA $ 15,000.00
CURB EXTENSIONS 350 SF at 6" depth EA $5,400.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data for Minor Concrete (Sidewalk)
CURB RAMPS ASSUMING 1 CY PER UNIDIRECTIONAL CURB
RAMP EA $1,500.00 Caltrans Contract Cost Data
SEGMENTAL DIVIDER ZEBRA BIKE LANE DIVIDERS / ARMADILLOS EA $80 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Cross road_Lab_Quick_Build_04092020.pdf
SPEED HUMP EA $7,000
/406211.pdf?name=Report%20from%20Los%20
Angeles%20Department%20of%20Transportatio
Cells of this color do not have a Caltrans Item Number
Cost Data Sources
Cost data was pulled from recent bid items per the Caltrans Contract Cost Database, and City of Glendale North Brand Blvd. Complete Streets Demonstration Project Bid Comparison (11/02/2023)

THE BELOW COSTS ARE FOR THE PROPOSED CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS Agenda Item #13.1.

St Helena Streets Master Plan
Appendix E
Project Cost Opinions
Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Prepared By: Sofia Pollmann
St. Helena Streets Master Plan Date: 4/1/2025
October 2025
Spring Street

DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Roadway Excavation 500 CY $300.00 $150,000
Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete Pavement 13400 SY $25.00 $335,000 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) 2244 TON $300.00 $673,333
Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) 220 CY $830.00 $182,600
Class 2 Aggregate Base 590 CY $120.00 $70,767
Curb Ramps 32 EA $1,500.00 $48,000
Detectable Warning Surface 320 SF $60.00 $19,200
Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) 3620 LF $180.00 $651,600 Speed Humps 6 EA $7,000.00 $42,000
Pavement Markings Symbols 48 SF $15.00 $720
24" Pavement Markings Crosswalks 5880 SF $20.00 $117,600 12" Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe 260 LF $4.00 $1,040
6" Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (White) 5720 LF $5.00 $28,600 6" Thermoplastic Double Yellow Line 2720 LF $5.00 $13,600 Street Trees 34 EA $200.00 $6,760
Landscape 5408 SF $15.00 $81,120
Traffic Signs & Posts 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500
Drainage and Utility Modifications/Adjustments (15%) 1 LS $364,416.11 $364,416 Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $139,692.84 $139,693
Maintenance of Traffic (5%) 1 LS $139,692.84 $139,693
Erosion and Sediment Control (2%) 1 LS $55,877.14 $55,877 SUBTOTAL = $3,129,120

CONTINGENCIES
15% ENGINEERING AND DESIGN COSTS = $469,368
20% CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT = $625,824
35% CONTINGENCY = $1,095,192
TOTAL = $5,319,503
General Assumptions and Exclusions:

1. Unit prices are based on Caltrans District 4 Contract Cost Data, using the most recent available data from this time period.

2. The opinion does not include environmental permitting, easement, or property acquisition.

3. The opinion does not include construction administration and inspection services.

4. The opinion does not include public outreach, funding planning, or client management services.

5. The Drainage and Utility Modifications lump sum unit price assumes: 15% cost of project.

6. This cost opinion was developed in October 2025. The latest National Highway Construction Cost index for Q1 2025 is 3.167

7. The ENR Construction Cost Index at the time of this estimate is 15,459 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Opinions of probable costs were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost. Planning-level cost opinions include a 35% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2025 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from Caltrans Contract District 4 Cost Data. Cost opinions do not include easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting, inspection, or construction management; engineering, surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance.

A cost range has been assigned to certain general categories such as utility relocations; however, these costs can vary widely depending on the exact details and nature of the work. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Prepared By: Sofia Pollmann
St. Helena Streets Master Plan Date: 4/1/2025
October 2025
Adams Street

DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS $340,000.00 $340,000
Hot Mix Asphalt 903 TON $300.00 $270,904
Class 2 Aggregate Base 1548 CY $120.00 $185,724
Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) 140 SY $830.00 $116,200
Curb Ramps 11 EA $1,500.00 $16,500
Detectable Warning Surface 110 SF $60.00 $6,600
Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) 0 LF $180.00 $0
Pavement Markings Symbols 11 SF $15.00 $165
24" Pavement Markings Crosswalks 840 SF $20.00 $16,800
12" Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe 125 LF $20.00 $2,500
6" Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Yellow) 2500 LF $5.00 $12,500 6" Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (White) 3500 LF $5.00 $17,500 6" Thermoplastic Double Yellow Line 2500 LF $5.00 $12,500 Midwest Guardrail System 2500 LF $60.00 $150,000
Traffic Signal Modifications 1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000
Street Lighting 1 LS $550,000.00 $550,000
Misc Street Furniture (1%) 1 LS $19,978.94 $19,979
Drainage and Utility Modifications/Adjustments (15%) 1 LS $299,684.08 $299,684 Bridge and Levee Structure 1 LS $32,571,000.00 $32,571,000 See Nov 2025
Adams
Street bridge
costing for
more information
Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $99,894.69 $99,895
Maintenance of Traffic (5%) 1 LS $99,894.69 $99,895
Erosion and Sediment Control (2%) 1 LS $39,957.88 $39,958 SUBTOTAL = $34,788,304

CONTINGENCIES
15% ENGINEERING AND DESIGN COSTS = $5,218,246
20% CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT = $6,957,661
35% CONTINGENCY = $12,175,906
TOTAL = $59,140,117
General Assumptions and Exclusions:

1. Unit prices are based on Caltrans District 4 Contract Cost Data, using the most recent available data from this time period.

2. The opinion does not include environmental permitting, easement, or property acquisition.

3. The opinion does not include construction administration and inspection services.

4. The opinion does not include public outreach, funding planning, or client management services.

6. The New Drainage and Utility lump sum unit price assumes: 15% cost of project.

7. The Street Lighting Adjustments lump sum unit price assumes: New streetlights every 100' O.C.

8. This cost opinion was developed in October 2025. The latest National Highway Construction Cost index for Q1 2025 is 3.167

9. The ENR Construction Cost Index at the time of this estimate is 15,459

10. This estimate does not include right-of-way acquisition, building demolition, hazard remediation, permit and inspection fees, and testing

11. This engineer's opinion is based on extending Adams Street from Starr Ave to Silverado Trail N including a bridge over the Napa River

12. This engineer's opinion does not include any agency fees

13. This engineer's opinion is for informational and planning purposes only. Acrual costs should be provided by a contractor

14. This engineer's opinion does not include any landscaping or irrigation work Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Opinions of probable costs were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost. Planning-level cost opinions include a 35% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2025 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from Caltrans Contract District 4 Cost Data.

Cost opinions do not include easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting, inspection, or construction management; engineering, surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance. A cost range has been assigned to certain general categories such as utility relocations; however, these costs can vary widely depending on the exact details and nature of the work. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction.

5. The Traffic Signal Modifications lump sum unit price assumes: New traffic signal infrastructure at Adams Street and Silverado Trail N.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Engineer's Preliminary Opinion of Probable
Construction Costs for
Adams Street Bridge Improvements
Redwood City
255 ShoreLine Drive, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94065
Tel: 650.482.6300
Fax: 650.482.6399
Date: 2/10/2021 11/25/2025 BKF Job #: 232531

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL NOTES

1. Viaduct (Flat slab on pile extensions) $700 39,900 SF $27,930,000 Quantity is based on a 42' width and 950' length.

2. Napa River Clear Span (5' deep precast girder with 10" thick deck) $850 5,460 SF $4,641,000 Quantity is based on a 42' width and 130' length. $32,571,000

1. Contingency 30% 1 LS $9,772,000
$42,343,000

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. Unit costs for the viaduct and Napa River bridge were developed by reviewing the 2023 Caltrans Comparative Bridge Costs and consulting with Biggs Cardosa Structural Engineers.

Unit costs are informed by recent construction cost estimates on comparable projects and engineering judgement.

Subcontractor mobilization and general contractor costs are excluded from this estimate This engineer's opinion is based on extending Adams Street from Starr Ave to Silverado Trail N including a bridge over the Napa River NOTES
FINAL TOTAL:

STRUCTURES SUB-TOTAL:

This engineer's opinion does not include any agency fees This engineer's opinion is for informational and planning purposes only. Actual costs should be provided by a contractor This engineer's opinion does not include any lighting, landscaping, or irrigation work This estimate does not include right-of-way acquisition, building demolition, hazard remediation, permit and inspection fees, and testing Adams Street Extension

ADAMS STREET EXTENSION CONSTRUCTION
A. STRUCTURES

Agenda Item #13.1.

PROPOSED LEVEE

DEL RIO COURT

REDONDO COURT

LAGUNA SECA CT
SAN
ARDO
CT

INTERPRETIVE TRAIL

ADAMS STREET

POPE STREET

SILVERADO TRAIL
SEE NOTE 2
SEE NOTE 3
SEE NOTE 5
SEE NOTE 3

WATER MAIN

RELOCATION

AS-BUILT

RECORD DRAWINGS
APRIL 2011

VERIFY SCALES

1. NO ACCESS, STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS OR
WORK PRODUCTS ON ROADWAYS WITHIN VINEYARDVALLEY MOBILE HOME PARK OUTSIDE OF PROJECT ROWWILL BE ALLOWED.

2. PRIMARY ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION SITE
SHALL BE VIA ADAMS STREET.

3. ACCESS VIA PASEO GRANDE & DEL RIO COURT SHALL BE

LIMITED TO ACTIVITIES ESSENTIAL TO FLOODWALL
CONSTRUCTION DOWNSTREAM OF STATION 28+60.

4. ACCESS VIA REDONDO COURT SHALL BE PERMITTED FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF STORM TOE DRAIN OUTLET ONLY.
(SEE DRAWING FP-2)

5. DUE TO PERMITTING CONDITIONS, ACCESS TO AREAS ON

THE RIVER SIDE OF THE PARKS PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY

ALONG THE RIVERBANK WILL NOT BE PROVIDED AFTER
NOVEMBER 1ST.

ACCESS ROUTE
Levee Portion ~ 1,000 ftExisting Top of LeveeElevation: 221.2 ft Viaduct Portion ~ 950 ft
Napa River Bridge ~ 130 ft Adam Street Segment by
Hunter Subdivision Project
Meadowood Ln
Finished GradeElevation 227 ft perB.F.E. 220 ft

RAMP UP

MEADOWOODLANE

NAPARIVER
ELEVATION 227 TOP OF LEVEE
221.2
24' 12'
~18" with caltrans barrieror metal barrier designedby architect ~1' w/ caltrans barrier
42' VIADUCT

NAPA RIVERBRIDGE
RAMP UP/DOWNFROM VIADUCT.MAX 5% SLOPE
LEVEE AS-BUILTMARKUPBKF ENGINEERS11/25/2025

EXISTINGGRADE

VIADUCT AND BRIDGECROSS SECTION
Agenda Item #13.1.

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance

17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 11/25/2025 at 11:56 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES
OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS
8 B

20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
122°28'5"W 38°31'10"N
122°27'28"W 38°30'42"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
Agenda Item #13.1.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

BKF ENGINEERS
Redwood City Office: 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 200, Redwood City, CA 94065 | 650.482.6300 Date: November 25, 2025 BKF Job Number: 20232531
Deliver To: Anju Palta
Toole Design – Transmitted Via Email: [email protected] From: Patrick Connors, PE
Andy Snitovsky, PE
BKF Engineers, Redwood City, CA 94065
Subject: St. Helena Streets Master Plan – Adams Street Extension Levee Impact Review This memorandum provides an overview of the proposed Adams Street roadway extension from the existing levee to Silverado Trail N. A proposed bridge and road through the flood plain are required for this roadway extension. Below is BKF’s review including a street design summary, stormwater management, and geotechnical considerations.

OVERVIEW
The Adams Street extension is planned to extend from Starr Avenue to Silverado Trail N including a bridge across Napa River. The roadway coincides with a levee for about 1000 feet, before diverging to cross a Habitat Restoration Area and the Napa River until eventually reaching the Silverado Trail N and Meadwood Lane intersection. A diagram of the road extension is provided below for reference and in the attached markup.

Agenda Item #13.1.

November 25, 2025

STREETSCAPE DESIGN
The of the crown on the levee is 48 feet wide, and the planned Adams Street cross-section is 44 feet which will sit on the crown with an additional 2’ of existing levee on either side. The proposed roadway will consist of two 11’ travel lanes, a 10’ shared-use path, and two 6’ shoulders. Guardrails are expected on either side of the travel lanes since the existing levee slopes are steeper than 4:1.

Below is a June 2025 version of the Proposed Typical Cross Section from the “Adams Street Conceptual Plan”. To match the above plan, the following updates are required:
- The curb and gutter along the shared use path will be removed and the path will be placed atgrade with the travel lanes to allow stormwater sheet flow off the side of the levee - The right-side guardrail will be placed between the shared use path and the travel lane to protect the shared-use path from adjacent traffic
- The right-side shoulder will remain to the right of the shared use path Where the street crosses bridge structures, the cross-section would look similar to the one above consisting of:
- Two 12’ Travel Lanes
- One 12’ Shared Use Path
- Two 3’ Shoulders with Sidewalls/Guardrails
42’ Total Structure Width
The existing top of levee elevation is 221.2 per record drawings, which is approximately 1.2' above the FEMA base flood elevation on the outboard side of the levee. We anticipate that the top of roadway elevation would need to be set at approximately elevation 227 to allow for adequate structure depth and freeboard to the existing FEMA base flood elevation. An embankment should be considered where the viaduct structure connects to the top of levee and to the Silverado Trail/Meadwood intersection.

The extent of the embankment should be minimized to avoid displacement of floodwaters. This Agenda Item #13.1.

November 25, 2025

embankment would serve as a transition to the viaduct structure and also allow for the roadway to start sloping up to achieve the required top of roadway structure elevation.

Hydrologic and Hydraulic study would be needed to determine allowable extent of embankment and required drainage measures to be implemented such as culverts.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Under California’s Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, provision C.3 requires stormwater runoff management for roadway projects that produce over 10,000 square feet in impervious surface [Provisions C.3.b.ii.(4)]. C.3 recommends a design strategy of directing runoff from sidewalks, walkways, driveways, and parking lots to vegetated areas [Provisions C.3.c.i.(2)(a)(v)] and that 100% of the amount of runoff identified by Provisions C.3.d be treated via LID, including infiltration, evapotranspiration, and biotreatment measures [Provisions C.3.c.i.(2)(b)].

The surroundings of the levee can be used as an LID self-retaining area, meaning stormwater could be conveyed off the paved areas directly via sheet flow. This should be facilitated by grading impervious surfaces to pervious surfaces at a maximum ratio of 2:1. Flowlines in this area and under the viaduct can be viewed on the attached markup.

Addition of the paved roadway atop the levee will create new impervious surface and result in an incremental increase in stormwater runoff. The rate of runoff should be reviewed to verify that the existing detention basin and pump station on the inboard side of the levee have adequate capacity for the additional runoff.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Other items include geotechnical and environmental design considerations:
- The existing top of levee elevations should be maintained when building the new roadway to avoid compromising the FEMA accreditation for the levee. - Due to asphalt concrete pavement being heavier than existing natural soil, geotechnical review will need to be completed to determine if settlement will become a concern with the additional weight. Vehicular loading (live load) should also be evaluated and added to the dead load of the pavement section. One method to compensate for settlement may be to raise grades for the proposed roadway.
- Where the roadway diverges from the top of the levee and extends toward the Napa River, a viaduct structure is anticipated to be constructed. This structure would pass through a Habitat Restoration area which is permanently preserved by a conservation agreement under the Land Trust of Napa County. Environmental permitting specialists should be consulted to advise on the implications of constructing a roadway structure through this area. A roadway alignment west of the Habitat Restoration area may be considered to avoid the area.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Levee As-Built Markup, by BKF Engineers

2. National Flood Hazard Layer FEMA FIRMETTE

3. Adams Street Cost Estimate for Viaduct and Bridge, by BKF Engineers Agenda Item #13.1.

November 25, 2025

SITE VISIT PHOTOS
Figure 1. View from top of levee looking back toward Starr Avenue Figure 2. View from top of levee looking toward Napa River/Silverado Trail Agenda Item #13.1.

November 25, 2025

Figure 3. Habitat restoration area signage
Figure 4. Looking across Napa River at approximate bridge location Agenda Item #13.1.

November 25, 2025

Figure 5 Habitat restoration area looking back towards levee from Napa River Agenda Item #13.1.

Engineer's Preliminary Opinion of Probable
Construction Costs for
Oak Avenue Improvements
Redwood City
255 ShoreLine Drive, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94065
Tel: 650.482.6300
Fax: 650.482.6399
Date: 2/10/2021 1/16/2026 BKF Job #: 232531

ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT COST1
2001
ESCALATED3

UNIT COST
2025

BKF SUGGESTED

UNIT COST
2025 QUANTITY1 UNIT
TOTAL
2001

ESCALATED
TOTAL
2025

BKF SUGGESTED
TOTAL
2025 NOTES

1. Earthwork: Cut $5 $20 $40 575 CY $2,875 $11,500 $23,000

2. Earthwork: Fill $15 $58 $60 2,873 CY $43,095 $167,000 $173,000

3. Roadway: .40' Asphalt Pavement $2 $6 $6 25,795 SF $38,693 $155,000 $155,000

4. Roadway: 1.50' Aggregate Base $3 $12 $15 25,795 SF $77,385 $310,000 $387,000

5. Roadway: Curb and Gutter $15 $58 $75 1,302 LF $19,530 $76,000 $98,000

6. Roadway: Sidewalk $5 $20 $25 7,660 SF $38,300 $154,000 $192,000

7. Roadway: Planter Strip $4 $16 $25 4,864 SF $19,456 $78,000 $122,000

8. Utilities: 10" Water $70 $269 $350 843 LF $59,010 $227,000 $296,000

9. Utilities: 6" Reclaimed Water $60 $231 $300 843 LF $50,580 $195,000 $253,000

10. Utilitites: Street Lights $15 $58 $530 733 LF $10,995 $43,000 $389,000 Assuming a street light every 30' on
both sides of the street.

11. Structures: Bridge over Sulphur Creek $2,750,000 $10,562,050 $20,000,000 1 EA $2,750,000 $10,563,000 $20,000,000 Assumes supports mid-span. Unit
cost is based on 60' width, 400'
length and approximately $850/SF.

12. Traffic Control: Signing and Striping $7,660 $29,421 $75,000 1 LS $7,660 $30,000 $75,000

13. Street Monumentation $1,499 $5,759 $25,000 1 LS $1,499 $6,000 $25,000

14. Erosion Control $14,077 $54,066 $90,000 1 LS $14,077 $55,000 $90,000

15. Clearing and Grubbing 3% 3% 3% 1 LS $93,995 $363,000 $669,000

16. Mobilization 10% 10% 10% 1 LS $313,315 $1,208,000 $2,228,000

17. Right-of-Way Acquisition - - - 1 LS $2,389,240 $2,389,240 $2,389,240 See note 4 $5,929,705 $16,030,740 $27,564,240
Contingency 35% 35% 35% 1 LS $2,075,397 $5,610,759 $9,647,484 $8,005,102 $21,641,499 $37,211,724

1. Earthwork: Cut $5 $20 $40 925 CY $4,625 $18,500 $37,000

2. Earthwork: Fill $15 $58 $60 4,627 CY $69,405 $269,000 $278,000

3. Roadway: .40' Asphalt Pavement $2 $6 $6 41,555 SF $62,333 $250,000 $250,000

4. Roadway: 1.50' Aggregate Base $3 $12 $15 41,555 SF $124,665 $499,000 $624,000

5. Roadway: Curb and Gutter $15 $58 $75 2,098 LF $31,470 $122,000 $158,000

6. Roadway: Sidewalk $5 $20 $25 12,340 SF $61,700 $247,000 $309,000

7. Roadway: Planter Strip $4 $16 $25 7,836 SF $31,344 $126,000 $196,000

8. Utilities: 24" RCP Storm Drain $75 $289 $375 1,400 LF $105,000 $405,000 $525,000

9. Utilities: 10" Water $70 $269 $350 1,357 LF $94,990 $366,000 $475,000

10. Utilities: 12" Sewer $70 $269 $400 1,350 LF $94,500 $364,000 $540,000

11. Utilities: 6" Reclaimed Water $60 $231 $300 1,357 LF $81,420 $314,000 $408,000

12. Utilities: Joint Trench $130 $500 $600 2,200 LF $286,000 $1,100,000 $1,320,000

13. Utilitites: Street Lights $15 $58 $530 1,467 LF $22,005 $86,000 $778,000

14. Traffic Control: Signing and Striping $12,340 $47,395 $75,000 1 LS $12,340 $48,000 $75,000

15. Street Monumentation $3,001 $11,525 $25,000 1 LS $3,001 $12,000 $25,000

16. Erosion Control $28,173 $108,206 $75,000 1 LS $28,173 $109,000 $75,000

17. Clearing and Grubbing 3% 3% 3% 1 LS $33,389 $131,000 $183,000

17. Mobilization 10% 10% 10% 1 LS $111,297 $434,000 $608,000

18. Right-of-Way Acquisition - - - 1 LS $4,530,540 $4,530,540 $4,530,540 See note 4 $5,788,196 $9,431,040 $11,394,540
Contingency 35% 35% 35% 1 LS $2,025,869 $3,300,864 $3,988,089 $7,814,065 $12,731,904 $15,382,629
$15,819,167 $34,373,403 $52,594,353

1. 2.

3. 4.

Quantities and 2001 cost estimates are sourced from Highway 29 Corridor Specific Plan Conceptual Design Cost Estimate sheet dated Feb 28, 2001 Oak Avenue Extension
A. SEGMENT 1: MITCHELL DRIVE TO CHARTER OAK AVENUE
SEGMENT 1 SUBTOTAL:

B. SEGMENT 2: CHARTER OAK AVENUE TO GRAYSON AVENUE
SEGMENT 2 SUBTOTAL:

SEGMENT 1 TOTAL:

SEGMENT 2 TOTAL:
2025 ENR unit costs are calculated from the 2001 costs multiplied by ENR CCI escalation rate of 3.84 (for ENR Rate column) This estimate does not include building demolition, hazard remediation, permit and inspection fees, and testing

OAK AVENUE EXTENSION CONSTRUCTION
Right-of-way aquistion costs are based on an estimate provided by Toole Design dated December 2025.

FINAL TOTAL:

NOTES

Agenda Item #13.1.

Parcel number Current Land Use Zoning District
Est. acreage
needed Est. cost per acre Est. cost Feasibility notes
009-263-005-000 Vacant Public/Quasi-Public 0.21 $0 $0 No assessed value; public land. 009-263-014-000 Vacant commercial
with misc.
improvements
Mixed Use 0.23 $2,254,000 $518,420 Alignment doesn't appear to intersect with existing structures.

Est. acreage assumes alignment
only.
009-263-007-000 Motel - B&B Mixed Use 0.39 $2,254,000 $879,060 Alignment might be able to route around existing structure. Est.
acreage assumes more land than
alignment is needed to render
viable parcels.
009-180-036-000 Commercial
improved
Industrial 0.34 $2,254,000 $766,360 Alignment doesn't appear to intersect with existing structures.

Est. acreage assumes alignment
only.
009-180-039-000 Commercial
improved
Industrial 0.1 $2,254,000 $225,400 Alignment doesn't appear to intersect with existing structures.

Est. acreage assumes alignment
only.

TOTAL SEGMENT 1 1.27 $2,389,240
009-180-035-000 Retail Service Commercial 0.36 $2,254,000 $811,440 Alignment doesn't appear to intersect with existing structures.

Est. acreage assumes alignment
only.
009-180-040-000 Commercial
improved
Mixed-Use 0.19 $2,254,000 $428,260 Clif Family Winery lot; alignment appears to intentionally avoid
intersecting with Enoteca
building. Est. acreage assumes
alignment only.
009-180-041-000 Commercial
improved
Mixed-Use 0.94 $2,254,000 $2,118,760 Alignment doesn't appear to intersect with existing structures.

Est. acreage assumes more land
than alignment is needed to
render viable parcels.
009-180-027-000 Single-Family
Residential
High-Density
Residential

0.52 $2,254,000 $1,172,080 Alignment intersects with existing structures. Est. acreage assumes
entire parcel is needed.

TOTAL SEGMENT 2 2.01 $4,530,540

ASSUMPTIONS
Segment 1: Mitchell Drive to Charter Oak Ave
Segment 2: Charter Oak Avenue to Grayson Avenue
December 22, 2025
Toole Design and Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)
St. Helena Streets Master Plan
Re: Oak Avenue Extension Acquisition Estimate

1. Assumed land values on a per-acre basis are informed by the Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) analysis memorandum delivered on December 17, 2025, and are used as inputs for planning-level cost estimation rather than site-specific appraisals.

2. The assumed right-of-way (ROW) width of 60 feet reflects the conceptual design identified in the 2001 Highway 29 Specific Plan and is used as a consistent planning assumption for estimating potential acquisition needs.

3. Where the proposed alignment is anticipated to divide a parcel such that the remaining portion would likely not support development or economically viable use, the estimate assumes acquisition of both the ROW area and the additional remainder area that is presumed to be unviable for development.

4. Where the alignment is not expected to impair the parcel’s ability to support reasonable economic use, the acquisition estimate assumes only the land area within the conceptual 60-foot ROW, calculated based on the length of the alignment through the parcel.

5. Judgments regarding the potential viability of remainder parcels are made at a conceptual, planning level for the purpose of estimating costs only and do not constitute legal determinations.

6. Land values reflect prevailing market conditions for broadly comparable properties in St. Helena at the time of analysis and are presented in current (noninflated) dollars.

7. The acquisition estimate includes land acquisition only and excludes improvements, relocation assistance, utility relocation, environmental mitigation, legal costs, and construction-related expenses.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Memorandum
To: Anjulie Palta, Toole Design Group
From: Jason Moody and Rosanna Ren, Economic & Planning Systems Subject: St. Helena Right-of-Way Land Acquisition Cost Estimates EPS #251075
Date: December 17, 2025
This memorandum summarizes the methodology and resulting estimates for right-of-way land acquisition costs needed for the Oak Avenue extension project proposed in the St.

Helena Streets Master Plan. The analysis has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) as part of a consultant team led by Toole Design Group and retained by the City of St. Helena to prepare the Streets Master Plan.

The proposed Oak Avenue extension improvements included in the Plan would connect Mitchell Drive to Grayson Avenue, running parallel to Highway 29, and require the acquisition of several largely undeveloped land parcels. EPS estimated the likely land acquisition costs based on readily available data of comparable sales in the region. The information is designed to support the planning process and does not constitute a formal appraisal for any specific site.

Summary of Results
Table 1 below summarizes the sites used as comparables for the cost estimate and their approximate land sale value in 2025 dollars. On average, land value is estimated at $2,254,000 per acre, with a likely range of $2.1 million to $2.4 million per acre. The estimates are based on 33 land sale comparables going back to 2020 but have been adjusted for inflation and are reported in 2025 dollars.

Agenda Item #13.1.

St. Helena Right-of-Way Land Acquisition Cost Estimates

Table 1 Summary of CoStar and City Land Appraisal Comparables and Average Land Sale Value
Land Use Description
Number of
Sites Location
Est. Land Sale Price
per Acre (2025$)1
CoStar Averages of Prior Land Sales in St. Helena (2020-2025) Agricultural 19 sites St. Helena $2,363,000
Commercial 4 sites St. Helena $313,000
Residential 3 sites St. Helena $2,061,000
Average of All Costar Sites 26 sites St. Helena $2,013,000 Comparables from City Land Appraisals2
Commercial3,4 St. Helena $3,289,000
Commercial4 Napa $2,798,000
Commercial3 Napa $3,383,000
Commercial3,4 Healdsburg $2,593,000
Commercial3,4 Yountville $3,516,000
Commercial3 Napa $4,168,000
Residential4 St. Helena $2,293,000
Average of City Land Appraisals $3,149,000
Combined Average of Costar and City Appraisal Comparables Agricultural 19 sites $2,363,000
Commercial 10 sites $2,100,000
Residential 4 sites $2,119,000
Average of All Comparables 33 sites $2,254,000
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; City of St. Helena; CoStar Group; Economic & Planning Systems [1] Removes the cost of improvements, if any, based on the proportion of improvements in the parcel's assessed value. All sale data are presented on a per-acre basis and adjusted to 2025 dollars based on the BLS Consumer Price Index. Values are rounded to nearest thousand.
[2] Sale comparables for city land appraisals included eight unique sites. EPS removed one outlier site, valued at $12.7 million per acre.
[3] Comparable was cited in appraisal report of the St. Helena Police Station and City Hall (1480 Main St), which estimated the value at $4,950,000, or $6,973,000 per acre in 2025 dollars. [4] Comparable was cited in appraisal report of vacant commercially zoned Adams St/Library Ln site, which estimated the value at $18,300,000, or $3,448,000 per acre in 2025 dollars.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Data Sources and Methodology
EPS evaluated property sales data from available data sources to estimate the likely “arms-length” purchase price to acquire the necessary right-of-way for the Oak Avenue extension project. Based on the City’s zoning map, the proposed Oak Avenue extension runs through land zoned High-Density Residential, Service Commercial, Public/QuasiPublic, Industrial, and Mixed-Use. As a result, EPS considered property sales covering agricultural, commercial (including mixed-use), and residential land uses, from the following sources:
• CoStar Data: EPS reviewed property sales from the CoStar Group, a subscriptionbased commercial real estate database covering both residential and commercial transactions. CoStar identified 26 land sale transactions in St. Helena from 2020 to 2025.
• Recently Completed Appraisal Reports: The City provided EPS with two land appraisal reports, which included a sample of six comparable sales in Sonoma County and Napa County.1
To ensure “apples-to-apples” comparison of land sales of different sizes and across different years, EPS converted all sale prices to 2025 dollars (adjusted using the Consumer Price Index) and presented values on a per-acre basis. Recognizing that several of the transactions included sites with structural improvements that likely affected the sale value, EPS made further adjustments to estimate the portion of the sale price that accounts for the land value only. This was estimated using assessed value data from the Napa County Assessor’s Office, by taking the percentage of the AV that is the land value for each parcel and applying it to the sale price.
1 EPS removed two additional sites from analysis: One outlier which estimated a land value of $12.7 million per acre and another site for which assessed value data was not available.

Agenda Item #13.1.

St Helena Streets Master Plan
Appendix F
Synchro Analysis for
Key Extension and
Bridge Projects
Agenda Item #13.1.

429 1st St, Unit 110, Petaluma, CA 94952
Memorandum
Date: March 2, 2026
To: Anju Palta, Toole Design Group
From: Ian Barnes, PE, and Gillian Zhao, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis Executive Summary
This technical memorandum presents the transportation operations analysis for the proposed roadway project alternatives (hereafter referred to as “study alternatives”) under the Saint Helena Streets Master Plan. The Streets Master Plan project team considered three roadway project alternatives for transportation operations analysis. The goal is to reduce congestion along State Route 29/State Route 128/Main Street (hereafter referred to as “Main Street”), provide additional connections within the City, and support the other goals of the Streets Master Plan. The additional connections will enhance emergency response by providing additional access routes and adding redundancy for emergency vehicle routing. The dispersal of motor vehicle volumes will improve the multimodal environment and provide a more comfortable experience for all users. The roadway project alternatives will incorporate traffic calming measures and signage to reinforce the intended functions of the new connections per the Streets Master Plan.

The study alternatives include the following:
• Adams Street extension from its current eastern terminus at 899 Adams Street to Silverado Trail via a new bridge over the Napa River
• Oak Avenue extension between Mitchell Drive and either Grayson Avenue or Charter Oak Avenue (two southern terminus options), including a new bridge over Sulphur Creek • Pope Street Bridge improvements across the Napa River, which also includes realignment of Pope Street to meet Silverado Trail and Howell Mountain Road at a single intersection Fehr & Peers performed operations analysis using the Synchro 12 software, which considers traffic volumes, lane configurations, signal timings, and other pertinent design, traffic volume, and operational parameters contributing to intersection operations. Study intersections were analyzed using procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2022). Intersection operations Levels of Service (LOS) during the weekday morning (AM), weekday evening (PM), and weekend midday (MD) peak hours were evaluated to assess each study alternative’s effect on intersection operations across the City. More detailed information is presented in the Procedures and Methodologies section.

Results show that, as the new street connections and improvements provide alternative routes for travelers, providing varying levels of congestion reductions on Main Street and throughout the City.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis | 2 Among the alternatives, the Oak Avenue extension (Grayson Avenue terminus) alternative offers the greatest benefit in traffic operations, followed by the Adams Street extension alternative and Oak Avenue extension (Charter Oak Avenue terminus) alternative as they offer similar congestion reduction benefits. The Pope Street Bridge improvement alternative provides more modest benefits along Main Street. Table 1 is organized into two parts that summarize the LOS results at key intersections. Table 1A presents the LOS results under Existing Conditions, Cumulative No Project, Adams Street Extension Alternative and Pope Street Bridge Improvement Alternative. Table 1B summarizes the LOS results under Oak Avenue Extension Alternative (Grayson Avenue terminus) and Oak Avenue Extension Alternative (Charter Oak Avenue terminus).

Agenda Item #13.1.

Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis | 3 Table 1A. Intersection LOS at Key Intersections
Int. ID Intersection
Existing Traffic Control
Peak Hour
Existing Conditions Cumulative Conditions
No Project No Project Adams Street Extension Pope Street Bridge Improvement Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS 10 Main Street/Madrona Avenue-Fulton Lane
Signal
Weekday AM 18.0 B 49.0 D 49.0 D 49.0 D
Weekday PM 14.4 B 25.3 C 25.3 C 25.3 C
Weekend MD 33.5 C 33.6 C 25.4 C 33.6 C
12 Main Street/Adams Street
Signal
Weekday AM 22.5 C 35.2 D 38.1 D 35.2 D
Weekday PM 23.6 C 34.3 C 44.1 D 34.3 C
Weekend MD 41.9 D 59.2 E 41.1 D 59.2 E
18 Main Street/Pope Street-Mitchell Drive
Signal
Weekday AM 115.6 F >120 F 71.7 E >120 F
Weekday PM 97.8 F >120 F 75.6 E >120 F
Weekend MD 100.5 F 109.3 F 66.1 E 93.4 F
19 Main Street/Grayson Avenue
Signal
Weekday AM 37.6 D 68.5 E 48.9 D 65.0 E
Weekday PM 19.6 B 52.9 D 42.4 D 50.8 D
Weekend MD 23.4 C 28.7 C 19.8 B 25.5 C
26 Silverado Trail/Pope Street SSSC*
Weekday AM 3.7 (18.8) A (C) 9.6 (54.8) A (F) 9.3 (66.7) A (F) 38.2 D Weekday PM 3.3 (19.4) A (C) 25.6 (>120) D (F) 24.3 (>120) C (F) 53.4 D Weekend MD 2.1 (14.3) A (B) 2.9 (20.2) A (C) 2.4 (23.4) A (C) 23.4 C 28 Main Street/Charter Oak Avenue
SSSC
Weekday AM 5.3 (>120) A (F) 36.4 (111.6) E (F) 22.7 (71.0) C (F) 33.7 (103.0) D (F) Weekday PM 6.9 (119.2) A (F) 48.4 (>120) E (F) 33.8 (99.1) D (F) 45.8 (>120) E (F) Weekend MD 5.3 (89.3) A (F) 19.0 (>120) C (F) 10.7 (>120) B (F) 17.8 (>120) C (F) 34 Silverado Trail/Adams Street Signal
Weekday AM
Intersection Does Not Exist in
this Scenario
Intersection Does Not Exist in
this Scenario

18.1 B
Intersection Does Not Exist in
this Scenario Weekday PM 17.9 B
Weekend MD 14.6 B
Notes: *Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Road-Pope Street has been modeled as one signalized intersection under the Pope Street Bridge Improvement Alternative Scenario as an operational improvement. The county may also consider converting this intersection to a roundabout as described in the Napa County General Plan. 1. Delay for signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections presented as whole-intersection average delay. Delay for side-street stop-controlled intersections presented as whole-intersection average delay (delay on worst movement or single-lane approach).

2. LOS per Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition.

3. Bold indicates unacceptable operations.

4. AWSC = All-Way Stop-Controlled, SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Controlled.

5. Oak Avenue Extension LOS results presented in Table 1B.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis | 4 Table 1B. Intersection LOS at Key Intersections (Oak Avenue Extension) Int. ID Intersection
Existing Traffic Control
Peak Hour
Cumulative Conditions
Oak Avenue Extension
Grayson Avenue Terminus Charter Oak Avenue Terminus
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS
10 Main Street/Madrona Avenue- Fulton Lane Signal
Weekday AM 54.0 D 57.1 E
Weekday PM 34.8 C 34.5 C
Weekend MD 27.5 C 27.5 C
12 Main Street/Adams Street Signal
Weekday AM 35.3 D 35.8 D
Weekday PM 37.2 D 37.7 D
Weekend MD 37.6 D 37.6 D
18 Main Street/Pope Street-Mitchell Drive Signal
Weekday AM 63.5 E 81.3 F
Weekday PM 68.9 E 78.7 E
Weekend MD 63.6 E 68.9 E
19 Main Street/Grayson Avenue Signal
Weekday AM 38.6 D 71.9 E
Weekday PM 43.0 D 55.6 E
Weekend MD 24.3 C 29.3 C
26 Silverado Trail/Pope Street SSSC
Weekday AM 9.6 (54.8) A (F) 9.6 (54.8) A (F)
Weekday PM 25.6 (>120) D (F) 25.6 (>120) D (F)
Weekend MD 2.9 (20.2) A (C) 2.9 (20.2) A (C)
28 Main Street/Charter Oak Avenue SSSC**
Weekday AM 16.7 (56.3) C (F) 31.1 C
Weekday PM 27.0 (78.2) D (F) 29.8 C
Weekend MD 11.3 (>120) B (F) 27.6 C
35 Oak Avenue/ Grayson Avenue SSSC
Weekday AM 4.9 (13.2) A (B)
Weekday PM 3.8 (11.7) A (B) Intersection Does Not Exist in this Scenario Weekend MD 3.7 (9.9) A (A)
36 Oak Avenue/Charter Oak Avenue SSSC
Weekday AM 3.7 (12.7) A (B) 4.0 (10.2) A (B)
Weekday PM 4.0 (12.0) A (B) 3.6 (9.9) A (A)
Weekend MD 5.1 (11.3) A (B) 3.5 (10.0) A (A)
Notes: ** Main Street/Charter Oak Avenue has been modeled as one signalized intersection under the Oak Avenue Extension (Charter Oak Avenue terminus) Alternative Scenario as an operational improvement.

1. Delay for signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections presented as whole-intersection average delay. Delay for side-street stop-controlled intersections presented as whole-intersection average delay (delay on worst movement or single-lane approach).

2. LOS per Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition.

3. Bold indicates unacceptable operations.

4. AWSC = All-Way Stop-Controlled, SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Controlled.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis | 5 The Adams Street extension alternative would make the Silverado Trail and Adams Street route combination a more attractive route versus No Project conditions. As shown in Table 1A, it would result in a rerouting of traffic volumes and provide congestion reductions at key intersections along Main Street, including Main Street/Pope Street-Mitchell Drive and Main Street/Grayson Avenue. While traffic volumes would increase at locations such as Main Street/Adams Street and Silverado Trail/Pope Street, these intersections are generally expected to operate at a LOS similar to the No Project scenario. The new Silverado Trail/Adams Street intersection meets traffic signal warrant requirements and is expected to operate at LOS B with traffic signal installation, and would operate similarly well if a roundabout is implemented in lieu of a traffic signal. In addition to the congestion reduction benefit, the extension is envisioned to include a shared-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists to support bicycle and pedestrian connectivity throughout the City.

The Pope Street Bridge improvement alternative would improve motorists’ driving experience on the Pope Street Bridge; therefore, it is assumed this alternative will entice more drivers to use the Silverado Trail and Pope Street route. However, because these travelers would still need to navigate existing intersections that are congested, the diversion potential is smaller than the Adams Street alternative. As shown in Table 1A, the Pope Street Bridge improvement alternative would provide modest congestion reductions at key intersections along Main Street including Main Street/Pope Street-Mitchell Drive and Main Street/Grayson Avenue. While traffic volumes would increase at intersections along Pope Street, these intersections are generally expected to continue to operate at a LOS similar to No Project conditions. However, it is noted some intersections, such as Pope Street/Starr Avenue, will need complementary improvements (e.g., traffic control configurations such as all-way stop-control) to operate at LOS C or better. The Silverado Trail/Pope Street-Howell Mountain Road intersection meets traffic signal warrant requirements and is expected to operate at LOS D or better with traffic signal installation, and would operate similarly well if a roundabout is implemented in lieu of a traffic signal. In addition to vehicle circulation improvements, the Pope Street Bridge improvement would provide upgrades to pedestrian and bicyclists facilities to strengthen the multimodal network.

The Oak Avenue extension alternative would provide a new roadway connection parallel to the most congested segments along Main Street. As shown in Table 1B, both the Grayson Avenue terminus and the Charter Oak Avenue terminus alternative would reduce traffic volumes at key intersections along Main Street, including Main Street/Pope Street-Mitchell Drive. While traffic volumes would increase at intersections along Oak Avenue, the affected intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better. Specifically, key intersections along the extended segment of Oak Avenue, including Oak Avenue/Grayson Avenue and Oak Avenue/Charter Oak Avenue, are expected to operate at LOS C or better with side-street stop-controlled configurations. The intersections along the existing segment of Oak Avenue between Madrona Avenue and Grayson Avenue are expected to operate at LOS C or better with their existing stop control configurations (i.e. all-way stop-controlled and side-street stop-controlled). Under the Charter Oak Avenue terminus alternative, the Main Street/Charter Oak Avenue intersection meets traffic signal warrant requirements and is expected to operate at LOS C with traffic signal installation. While the traffic volumes would increase at locations along Oak Avenue, the overall volume along the corridor is expected to remain low to moderate. Wayfinding signages would be provided to improve driver awareness of the connection to key community locations, and the corridor would incorporate traffic calming measures to manage operating speeds and support a livable, multimodal street environment.

All study alternatives would allow drivers to utilize alternative routes and thus reduce congestion along Main Street within the City of Saint Helena. The Oak Avenue extension (Grayson Avenue Agenda Item #13.1.

Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis | 6 terminus) alternative provides the highest congestion reduction benefits across the study alternatives, as it provides the shortest re-route from Main Street, and enables drivers to travel on a route directly parallel to Main Street. The Oak Avenue extension (Charter Oak Avenue terminus) alternative also provides congestion reduction benefits. However, compared to the Grayson Avenue terminus alternative, the congestion reduction benefits are more modest because the extension will be shorter distance and drivers would still experience delays south of Charter Oak Avenue along Main Street before turning on to Oak Street. The Adams Street extension alternative provides the second highest congestion reduction benefits, as it provides a high-quality route to directly bypass congestion along Main Street. The Pope Street Bridge alternative offers a more comfortable driving experience for drivers willing to take the combination of Silverado Trail and Pope Street; however, drivers would still experience delays north of Pope Street along Main Street. By reducing vehicle demand and providing congestion reductions along Main Street, the study alternatives would also improve the multimodal environment, making the travel experience for all users more comfortable and safer.

Additional descriptions are provided in the Operations Assessment section. Appendix A presents the delays and LOS for all study intersections for reference. Appendix B presents the collected counts.

Appendix C presents the calculations worksheets.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis | 7 Introduction
This technical memorandum presents the transportation operations analysis for the street extension and/or improvement study alternatives under the Saint Helena Streets Master Plan. The operations assessment for the City’s General Plan Update 2040 was completed in 2018; the Saint Helena General Plan Update 2040 (hereafter referred to as “General Plan”) was adopted in 2019. The analysis builds upon the transportation operations analysis and traffic operations analysis models prepared for the adopted General Plan and has been prepared in a manner consistent with the traffic operations analysis for the adopted General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The work updated the Synchro traffic operations analysis model developed for the General Plan, incorporates revised traffic volume forecasts reflecting the roadway project build-out scenarios, and summarizes the traffic operations results of study alternatives.

Project Description
The existing transportation infrastructure and development pattern in the City of Saint Helena supports a walkable community and provides access to local and regional destinations. However, the City faces challenges including congestion along Main Street, limited low-stress multimodal options for residents and visitors, and intersection LOS grades that frequently fall below the standards set forth in the General Plan. The Saint Helena Streets Master Plan (hereafter referred to as “Streets Master Plan”) project aims to produce a conceptual design plan for the transportation network throughout the City, except for the Downtown Specific Plan (“DSP”) area. The Streets Master Plan will enhance and supplement the City’s circulation element goal of encouraging development of a multimodal transportation network and supportive land use decisions to boost alternative modes of transportation.

At the direction of the City, the Streets Master Plan project team considered three street extension alternatives for transportation operations analysis. The goal is to reduce traffic demand on Main Street and provide additional connections within the City. The additional connections will enhance emergency planning and response by providing additional access routes and adding redundancies for emergency vehicles. The study alternatives include the following:
• Adams Street extension from its current eastern terminus at 899 Adams Street to Silverado Trail via a new bridge over the Napa River
• Oak Avenue extension between Mitchell Drive and either Grayson Avenue or Charter Oak Avenue (two southern terminus options), including a new bridge over Sulphur Creek • Pope Street Bridge improvements across the Napa River, which also includes realignment of Pope Street to meet Silverado Trail and Howell Mountain Road at a single intersection Figure 1 presents the study intersections and proposed extensions.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Spring St Spring St
Spring Mountain RdSpring Mountain Rd
Meadowood Ln Meadowood Ln
Mund RdMund Rd
Pratt AvePratt Ave
Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave
Pope St Pope St
Grayson AveGrayson Ave
Chaix Ln Chaix Ln
White Ln White Ln
Dowdell Ln Dowdell L
M
n
ills Ln Mills Ln
Stice Ln Stice Ln
Fulton Ln Fulton Ln
Lewelling Ln Lewelling Ln
Crane AveCrane Ave
Vallejo StVallejo St
Mitchell DrMitchell Dr
Hunt AveHunt Ave
Conn Valley RdConn Valley Rd
Taplin RdTaplin Rd
St. Helena
Thoman
Barro
Zinfandel
Zinfandel Ln
29 128
Silverado Trl N
Elmhurst
Ave
Hillview Pl
Madrona Ave
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Charter Oak Ave
Spring St
Railroad Ave
Library Ln
Starr Ave
College Ave
Oak Ave
Hudson Ave
Valley View St
Deer Park Rd
Silverado Trl S
S Howell Mountain RdS Howell Mountain Rd
35 34
32 33
31 30
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18 17
16 15
14 13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4 36
3 2 1
Project Site Vicinity and Study Intersection Locations
FIGURE 1
0 1 2
Miles
Study Intersection Oak Avenue Extension Scenario Study Intersection (Grayson Avenue Terminus)
Adams Street Extension Scenario
Study Intersection
Pope Street Improvement Scenario
Study Intersection
# 34 25
Oak Avenue Extension Scenario Study Intersection Adams Street Extension (Charter Oak Avenue Terminus)
Pope Street Bridge Improvement
35/36
36 Agenda Item #13.1.

Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis | 9 Procedures and Methodologies
The study intersections were analyzed using procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2022). These methodologies were applied using Synchro 12 software, which considers traffic volumes, lane configurations, signal timings, and other pertinent design, traffic volume, and operational parameters contributing to intersection operations.

The following describes specific inputs, model parameters, and other aspects of Synchro modeling based on data collection efforts.
• Peak hour volumes collected at the study intersections in 2024 and 2025 were used for Existing Conditions. Local schools were in session and weather conditions were clear when the data was collected. Appendix B presents the collected counts.
• Volume forecasts were based on the General Plan transportation operations analysis buildout forecasts. For the study alternatives, forecasts were developed using output from the most appropriate version of the Solano-Napa Activity Based Model (SNABM). Specifically, the output was used to determine shifts in traffic volumes throughout the City resulting from the study alternatives, along with manual adjustments informed by travel time and traffic volume elasticity assessments.
• Intersection configurations were entered based on aerial imagery and anticipated complementary improvements.
• The observed existing conditions weekday morning, weekday evening, and weekend midday peak hour factor (PHF), which is a measure of peaking of traffic volumes during the busiest 15- minutes of the peak hour (lower values represent more peaking) at each intersection, was used. • The observed weekday morning, weekday evening, and weekend midday peak hour heavy vehicle percentage (HVP) at each intersection was used. Observed bicycle and pedestrian volumes were used. However, in cases where the HVP was two percent or less, a minimum of three percent was applied to account for potential variations in vehicle composition.

Level of Service Definition
This study analyzes intersection operations using automobile delay and LOS as the primary measure of performance. Automobile LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow from the perspective of motorists. The Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition (HCM) defines six levels of service, from LOS A representing the least congested traffic conditions to LOS F representing the most congested traffic conditions. These grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with driving, as well as speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, and freedom to maneuver.

The HCM methodology determines the LOS at intersections by calculating the weighted average delay per vehicle. At unsignalized side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is also reported for the worst approach. Table 2 displays LOS criteria for both signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis | 10 Table 2. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Definitions Level of
Service
LOS Criteria (Delay in Seconds)
Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections
A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0
B >10.0 to 20.0 >10.0 to 15.0
C >20.0 to 35.0 >15.0 to 25.0
D >35.0 to 55.0 >25.0 to 35.0
E >55.0 to 80.0 >35.0 to 50.0
F >80.0 >50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition, Transportation Research Board.

Intersection Substantial Operational Effect Criteria
Intersection operations LOS was evaluated to assess the study alternatives’ effect on intersection operations and identify the potential need for enhancements to the transportation network. Based on the Transportation Performance Measures of the adopted General Plan, the City has augmented performance measures to look beyond the traditional automobile LOS for the purpose of developing a meaningful nexus to improve multimodal circulation and provide congestion reductions. However, for the purpose of evaluating intersection operations for automobile LOS to illustrate the operational effect between study alternatives, thresholds consistent with the Saint Helena General Plan Update 2035 (April 2016), the Saint Helena General Plan Update 2040 Environmental Impact Report (October 2018), and the Napa County General Plan (February 2019) were used to inform if the study alternatives would result in unacceptable operations. In City of Saint Helena, the standard is LOS C for signalized and unsignalized intersections, except along Main Street where LOS D for signalized intersections shall be permitted. For intersections outside the City of Saint Helena boundary, the standard is LOS D at signalized intersections. Complementary improvements (e.g., traffic control configurations such as traffic signal or roundabout) were tested at key new intersections with the study alternatives.

Signal Warrant Analysis
The peak hour signal warrants (Warrant 3A and Warrant 3B) from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) were used to determine if a traffic signal is warranted at the new intersections.1
The warrants are based on volumes under cumulative conditions with respective study alternatives.
1 Warrant 3A and 3B are more rigorous than warrant 4C and were therefore selected as the basis for the signal warrant analysis. While the community’s population falls below the typical thresholds for 3A and 3B, applying these warrants at the planning level provides a more conservative analysis. This is especially relevant given the community’s tourist population, where seasonal and visitor traffic can result in volumes that exceed what the resident population alone would suggest.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis | 11 Operations Assessment
Existing Conditions
Fehr & Peers performed operations analysis for intersections under Existing Conditions, based on the traffic volumes and lane configurations shown in Figure 2. The analysis found that while most intersections operate acceptably under Existing Conditions, intersections that operate unacceptably during at least one peak hour include the following:
• Main Street/Pratt Avenue
• Main Street/Elmhurst Avenue
• Main Street/Pope Street-Mitchell Drive
• Main Street/Charter Oak Avenue
• Main Street/Spring Street
A summary table presenting the delays and LOS for all study intersections is provided in Appendix A for reference.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Control FIGURE 2
6 (4) [3]
18 (13) [7]
24 (33) [18]
3 (9) [3]
30 (18) [12]
44 (12) [12]

4. Hudson Ave/Madrona Ave
24 (17) [23]
207 (62) [64]
38 (41) [28]
19 (22) [29]
41 (27) [24]
165 (59) [25]

5. Valley View St/Spring St
103 (51) [66]
34 (10) [19]
64 (91) [52]162 (20) [8]
133 (33) [23]
20 (43) [13]

6. Valley View St/Crane Ave/Grayson Ave
5 (2) [5]
3 (3) [4] 3 (2) [1] 63 (57) [49]
119 (48) [38]
14 (3) [5]

7. Crane Ave/Sulphur Spring Ave
6 (5) [14]
650 (737) [625]
27 (17) [22]
0 (1) [5]
0 (1) [1]
2 (12) [8] 1 (2) [5] 636 (539) [584] 19 (22) [11]
19 (20) [12]
0 (1) [0]
30 (20) [20]

8. Main St/Pratt Ave
54 (27) [20]
650 (731) [630]
33 (28) [31]
43 (22) [25] 79 (16) [23] 589 (555) [589]

9. Main St/Elmhurst Ave
34 (16) [13]
556 (510) [503]
9 (5) [5]
86 (83) [73]
34 (34) [15]
31 (24) [31] 103 (37) [48] 459 (500) [525] 70 (40) [41] 62 (165) [74]
47 (27) [17]
11 (7) [4]

10. Main St/Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
99 (174) [91]
11 (10) [4]
20 (14) [7]
95 (63) [48]
17 (24) [8]
6 (11) [6]

11. Railroad Ave/Fulton Ln
Madrona Ave Grayson Ave
Valley View St Crane Ave
Sulphur Spring Ave
Crane Ave
Pratt Ave
Main St
Elmhurst Ave
Main St
Madrona Ave Fulton Ln
Main St
Fulton Ln
Railroad Ave
37 (23) [17]
523 (425) [451]
39 (34) [24]
47 (68) [38]
80 (62) [33]
21 (18) [26] 24 (31) [26] 446 (444) [500] 31 (56) [34]
29 (38) [32]
39 (53) [32]
26 (55) [29]

12. Main St/Adams St
Adams St
Main St
65 (30) [38]99 (67) [46]
28 (26) [9]
18 (19) [7]
57 (93) [33]
58 (53) [53] 15 (19) [6] 57 (55) [34] 46 (38) [32]
26 (85) [47]
32 (91) [33]
6 (32) [8]

13. Railroad Ave/Adams St
Adams St
Railroad Ave
6 (23) [3]
0 (0) [0]2 (0) [0]
18 (27) [19]
45 (23) [7]
26 (15) [1] 3 (24) [11] 1 (1) [0] 0 (0) [0]
1 (1) [0]
19 (46) [8]
0 (0) [0]

14. Library Ln/Adams St
583 (458) [473]
66 (79) [58]
467 (491) [534]26 (26) [21]
16 (24) [19]
21 (26) [15]

15. Main St/Hunt Ave
7 (8) [4]
64 (50) [19]24 (40) [31]
37 (27) [29]
47 (59) [32]
8 (12) [15] 15 (19) [11] 33 (59) [29] 72 (70) [44]
101 (53) [48]
20 (20) [17]
33 (55) [26]

16. Railroad Ave/Church St/Hunt Ave
23 (11) [10]
17 (14) [0] 7 (15) [8] 106 (104) [83]
44 (65) [60]
27 (38) [24]

17. Oak Ave/Mitchell Dr
67 (77) [85]
584 (497) [513]
39 (52) [43]
140 (149) [131] 3 (11) [4] 443 (438) [508] 87 (88) [51] 147 (94) [60]
33 (27) [21]
159 (129) [97]

18. Main St/Mitchell Dr/Pope St
Adams St
Library Ln
Hunt Ave
Railroad Ave Church St
Mitchell Dr
Oak Ave
Mitchell Dr Pope St
Main St
51 (26) [34]
710 (667) [721]
92 (30) [19]
56 (29) [25] 93 (55) [18] 679 (696) [739]

19. Main St/Grayson Avenue
94 (43) [32]
751 (684) [748]
10 (9) [7]
55 (63) [45] 26 (14) [12] 709 (711) [752]

20. Main St/Sulphur Springs Ave
56 (34) [29]
9 (15) [4]
7 (16) [6]
58 (57) [39]
25 (6) [3]
9 (5) [5]

21. Starr Ave/Hunt Ave
16 (25) [14]
160 (155) [146] 22 (10) [9] 53 (58) [29]
47 (37) [31]
312 (169) [169]

22. Starr Ave/Pope Street
117 (42) [21]
1 (2) [2]
43 (11) [7]
8 (21) [21]
93 (157) [107]
107 (33) [22] 19 (18) [15] 0 (1) [2] 10 (2) [3]
2 (5) [8]
215 (144) [171]
84 (14) [13]

23. Paseo Grand Dr/College Ave/Pope Street
Grayson Avenue
Main St
Hunt Ave
Starr Ave
Pope Street
Starr Ave
Pope Street
Paseo Grand Dr College Ave
Hunt Ave
Main St
Sulphur Springs Ave
Main St
Spring St
24 (9) [15]
433 (382) [388]
4 (2) [3]
20 (33) [18] 9 (11) [10] 436 (573) [408]

24. Silverado Trail/Pratt Ave
453 (372) [394]
48 (10) [24]
436 (601) [423]20 (5) [3]
4 (19) [9]
17 (18) [21]

25. Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Rd
141 (62) [75]
405 (319) [364]
96 (63) [54]
65 (109) [46] 146 (104) [116] 307 (515) [328]

26. Silverado Trail/Pope Street
Pratt Ave
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
Silverado Trail
Pope Street
Silverado Trail
0 (0) [0]
799 (696) [738]
3 (1) [2]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (1) [1] 3 (7) [1] 771 (750) [756] 2 (4) [9]
7 (7) [6]
0 (0) [0]
1 (0) [0]

27. Main St/Mills Ln
Mills Ln
Main St
16 (9) [14]
679 (597) [605]
111 (97) [125]
7 (13) [12]
2 (6) [8]
3 (19) [28] 22 (8) [8] 712 (684) [694] 8 (24) [34]
4 (16) [24]
1 (0) [2]
61 (58) [44]

28. Main St/Charter Oak Ave
3 (1) [3]
53 (65) [71]
16 (19) [9]
2 (1) [0]
4 (2) [1]
4 (5) [0] 2 (2) [0] 104 (65) [51] 11 (4) [2]
10 (5) [1]
6 (1) [4]
24 (20) [10]

29. Oak Ave/Pine St
22 (15) [8]
60 (67) [64]65 (96) [62]
8 (7) [2]
54 (29) [19]
57 (27) [4] 17 (4) [2] 93 (81) [44] 18 (16) [7]
22 (15) [9]
40 (31) [16]
30 (44) [40]

30. Oak Ave/Adams St
12 (26) [18]64 (83) [68]
13 (11) [8]
33 (53) [25]
53 (29) [24]
33 (43) [30] 22 (35) [9] 98 (75) [54] 41 (24) [22]
65 (36) [30]
51 (58) [30]
4 (13) [16]

31. Oak Ave/Spring St
Charter Oak Ave
Main St
Adams St
Oak Ave
Spring St
Oak Ave
Pine St
Oak Ave
110 (76) [58]
621 (515) [515]
28 (22) [16]
72 (51) [43] 27 (31) [29] 461 (486) [520]

32. Main St/Spring St
2 (0) [1]0 (0) [0]1 (0) [0]
22 (36) [18]
107 (111) [80]
0 (0) [0] 46 (78) [46] 1 (0) [0] 21 (41) [19]
69 (48) [25]
276 (200) [166]
0 (0) [2]

33. Church St/Pope St
Spring St
Main St
Pope St
Church St

STOP STOP STOP
POTS
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP

POTS POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOPSTOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
G
E
B
G
E
B
E
B
G
B
G
E
AE
D
AE
D
B
G
E
AE
D
AE
D
G
E
B
AE
D
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
AC
G
D
D
D
D
B
G
CF
AE
F AE
BF
AC
G
E
AC
AF
E
G
E
B
B
G
E
BF
AE
D
AE
B
G
E
E
AC
G
AC
G
CF
D
D
AE
D
AE
D
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
G
E
D
D
D
D
Spring St Spring St
Spring Mountain RdSpring Mountain Rd
Meadowood Ln Meadowood Ln
Mund RdMund Rd
Pratt AvePratt Ave
Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave
Pope St Pope St
Grayson AveGrayson Ave
Chaix Ln Chaix Ln
White Ln White Ln
Dowdell Ln Dowdell L
M
n
ills Ln Mills Ln
Stice Ln Stice Ln
Fulton Ln Fulton Ln
Lewelling Ln Lewelling Ln
Crane Ave Crane Ave
Vallejo St Vallejo St
Mitchell DrMitchell Dr
Hunt Ave Hunt Ave
Conn Valley RdConn Valley Rd
Taplin RdTaplin Rd
St. Helena
Thoman
Barro
Zinfandel
Zinfandel Ln
29 128
Silverado Trl N
Elmhurst
Ave
Hillview Pl
Madrona Ave
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Charter Oak Ave
Spring St
Railroad Ave
Library Ln
Starr Ave
College Ave
Oak Ave
Hudson Ave
Valley View St
Deer Park Rd
Silverado Trl S
S Howell Mountain RdS Howell Mountain Rd
35 34
32 33
31 30
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18 17
16 15
14 13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4 36
0 1 2
Miles
Study Intersection
Oak Avenue Extension Scenario
Study Intersection (Grayson Ave Terminus)
Weekday AM (Weekday PM) [Weekend MD]
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
XX (YY) [ZZ]
Oak Avenue Extension Scenario
Study Intersection (Charter Oak Ave Terminus)
#
Signalized
Intersection
STOP Stop Sign
Adams Street Extension Scenario
Study Intersection
Pope Street Improvement Scenario
Study Intersection
34 25
35/36
36 Agenda Item #13.1.

Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis | 13 Cumulative Conditions
Fehr & Peers performed Cumulative Conditions intersection operations analysis based on the traffic volumes and lane configurations shown in Figure 3. Under Cumulative Conditions without study alternatives, the analysis found that, because traffic volumes are expected to grow between Existing Conditions and Cumulative Conditions, several additional intersections operate unacceptably during at least one peak hour.

Intersections that were operating unacceptably during at least one peak hour under Existing Conditions and would continue to operate unacceptably include the following:
• Main Street/Pratt Avenue
• Main Street/Elmhurst Avenue
• Main Street/Pope Street-Mitchell Drive
• Main Street/Charter Oak Avenue
• Main Street/Spring Street
In addition, the following intersections which were operating acceptably under Existing Conditions are expected to degrade to unacceptable operations during at least one peak hour under Cumulative Conditions:
• Main Street/Adams Street
• Main Street/Hunt Avenue
• Main Street/Grayson Avenue
• Main Street/Sulphur Springs Avenue
• Pope Street/Paseo Grande Drive-College Avenue
• Silverado Trail/Pratt Avenue
• Silverado Trail/Pope Street
• Main Street/Mills Lane
• Main Street/Spring Street
As the study alternatives provide new roadway connections, traffic volumes were assumed to reroute and provide various degrees of congestion reductions for Main Street. Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6. Reference source not found. present the expected rerouted traffic volume under each study alternative. Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9. Reference source not found. present the traffic volume and lane configuration under each study alternative. Figures for the Oak Avenue extension alternative are organized into two parts (A and B) for the Grayson Avenue terminus and Charter Oak Avenue terminus alternatives.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Cumulative No Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Control FIGURE 3
10 (10) [10]50 (60) [10]
30 (30) [30]
10 (10) [10]
40 (20) [20]
100 (70) [20]

4. Hudson Ave/Madrona Ave
40 (40) [30]
230 (220) [90]
40 (60) [40]
50 (40) [40]
30 (50) [40]
250 (160) [40]

5. Valley View St/Spring St
110 (180) [90]
60 (30) [30]
130 (160) [70]210 (70) [20]
180 (90) [30]
30 (10) [20]

6. Valley View St/Crane Ave/Grayson Ave
10 (30) [10]
10 (40) [10] 10 (20) [10] 130 (140) [70]
140 (160) [50]
20 (30) [10]

7. Crane Ave/Sulphur Spring Ave
10 (10) [20]
720 (940) [640]
40 (40) [30]
10 (10) [10]
0 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10] 10 (10) [10] 900 (690) [620] 30 (30) [20]
30 (60) [20]
0 (10) [0]
30 (50) [30]

8. Main St/Pratt Ave
50 (30) [30]
740 (920) [650]
30 (70) [40]
30 (40) [30] 130 (40) [30] 810 (710) [630]

9. Main St/Elmhurst Ave
40 (30) [20]
610 (650) [520]
20 (20) [10]
100 (120) [80]
50 (50) [20]
50 (20) [40] 110 (60) [50] 610 (610) [560] 120 (80) [50] 80 (180) [80]
60 (50) [20]
20 (20) [10]

10. Main St/Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
120 (210) [100]
20 (10) [10]
30 (30) [10]
150 (110) [60]
20 (30) [10]
10 (10) [10]

11. Railroad Ave/Fulton Ln
Madrona Ave
Hudson Ave
Grayson Ave
Valley View St Crane Ave
Sulphur Spring Ave
Crane Ave
Pratt Ave
Main St
Elmhurst Ave
Main St
Madrona Ave Fulton Ln
Main St
Fulton Ln
Railroad Ave
50 (40) [20]
570 (550) [470]
50 (40) [30]
60 (80) [40]
90 (100) [40]
40 (30) [30] 70 (40) [40] 540 (530) [530] 70 (80) [40]
40 (70) [40]
70 (80) [40]
30 (70) [40]

12. Main St/Adams St
Adams St
Main St
80 (60) [40]
110 (90) [50]
60 (30) [10]
30 (20) [10]
100 (130) [40]
80 (90) [60] 20 (30) [10] 70 (80) [40] 60 (60) [40]
40 (100) [50]
50 (150) [40]
20 (60) [10]

13. Railroad Ave/Adams St
Adams St
Railroad Ave
10 (40) [10]
0 (0) [0]
0 (10) [0]
40 (70) [20]
90 (50) [10]
30 (10) [10] 10 (50) [20] 0 (10) [0] 0 (10) [0]
10 (0) [0]
30 (90) [10]
0 (0) [0]

14. Library Ln/Adams St
650 (600) [500]
110 (80) [70]
590 (600) [570]20 (30) [30]
20 (30) [20]
40 (60) [20]

15. Main St/Hunt Ave
10 (10) [10]10 (10) [20]10 (10) [40]
50 (30) [40]
60 (80) [40]
20 (10) [20] 10 (20) [20] 10 (10) [40] 140 (190) [50]
190 (140) [60]
40 (50) [20]
10 (10) [30]

16. Railroad Ave/Church St/Hunt Ave
30 (20) [20]
30 (30) [0] 20 (20) [10] 120 (150) [90]
60 (70) [70]
40 (50) [30]

17. Oak Ave/Mitchell Dr
80 (100) [90]
710 (630) [550]
80 (70) [50]
170 (210) [140] 10 (10) [10] 570 (570) [540] 100 (110) [60] 150 (120) [70]
40 (30) [30]
200 (160) [110]

18. Main St/Mitchell Dr/Pope St
Adams St
Library Ln
Hunt Ave
Railroad Ave Church St
Mitchell Dr
Oak Ave
Mitchell Dr Pope St
Main St
50 (70) [40]
920 (820) [770]
80 (70) [20]
70 (70) [30] 120 (60) [20] 840 (920) [810]

19. Main St/Grayson Avenue
100 (140) [40]
950 (860) [800]
20 (30) [10]
120 (140) [50] 40 (50) [20] 870 (940) [820]

20. Main St/Sulphur Springs Ave
110 (90) [40]
10 (10) [10]
20 (20) [10]
80 (100) [60]
30 (20) [10]
20 (10) [10]

21. Starr Ave/Hunt Ave
10 (30) [20]
210 (260) [190] 30 (20) [20] 100 (110) [40]
90 (80) [50]
390 (300) [220]

22. Starr Ave/Pope Street
120 (40) [30]
0 (0) [10]
50 (30) [10]
20 (40) [30]
180 (300) [140]
120 (40) [30] 20 (20) [20] 10 (0) [10] 10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [20]
320 (300) [230]
90 (20) [20]

23. Paseo Grand Dr/College Ave/Pope Street
Grayson Avenue
Main St
Hunt Ave
Starr Ave
Pope Street
Starr Ave
Pope Street
Paseo Grand Dr College Ave
Hunt Ave
Main St
Sulphur Springs Ave
Main St
Spring St
Valley View St
30 (30) [20]
560 (620) [520]
20 (30) [10]
20 (30) [30] 30 (30) [20] 630 (780) [540]

24. Silverado Trail/Pratt Ave
580 (640) [520]
40 (20) [40]
640 (800) [560]10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [20]
30 (50) [30]

25. Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Rd
220 (130) [100]480 (530) [480]
140 (130) [80]
100 (200) [60] 220 (230) [160] 450 (620) [430]

26. Silverado Trail/Pope Street
Pratt Ave
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
Silverado Trail
Pope Street
Silverado Trail
0 (10) [0]
990 (880) [780]
10 (0) [10]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [10] 10 (20) [10] 960 (970) [820] 10 (10) [10]
10 (20) [10]
0 (10) [0]
0 (10) [0]

27. Main St/Mills Ln
Mills Ln
Main St
20 (20) [20]
850 (760) [640]130 (120) [130]
10 (20) [20]
10 (10) [10]
10 (30) [40] 30 (10) [10] 900 (900) [740] 10 (30) [40]
10 (20) [30]
10 (0) [10]
70 (70) [60]

28. Main St/Charter Oak Ave
10 (10) [10]70 (90) [90]20 (30) [20]
10 (10) [0]
10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [0] 10 (10) [0] 130 (90) [70] 20 (10) [10]
20 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10]
30 (30) [20]

29. Oak Ave/Pine St
30 (20) [20]80 (90) [90]
80 (130) [80]
10 (10) [10]
70 (40) [30]
70 (40) [10] 30 (10) [10] 120 (110) [60] 30 (30) [10]
30 (20) [20]
50 (40) [30]
40 (60) [60]

30. Oak Ave/Adams St
20 (40) [30]
80 (110) [90]
20 (20) [20]
40 (70) [40]
70 (40) [40]
40 (60) [40] 30 (50) [20] 120 (100) [70] 50 (40) [30]
80 (50) [40]
70 (80) [40]
10 (20) [30]

31. Oak Ave/Spring St
Charter Oak Ave
Main St
Adams St
Oak Ave
Spring St
Oak Ave
Pine St
Oak Ave
140 (100) [80]
720 (650) [540]
40 (30) [30]
90 (70) [60] 40 (40) [40] 590 (620) [550]

32. Main St/Spring St
10 (0) [10]
0 (0) [0]
10 (0) [0]
30 (50) [30]
150 (150) [110]
0 (0) [0] 70 (110) [70] 10 (0) [0] 30 (60) [30]
100 (70) [40]
370 (270) [230]
0 (0) [10]

33. Church St/Pope St
Spring St
Main St
Pope St
Church St

STOP STOP STOP
POTS
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP

POTS POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOPSTOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
G
E
B
G
E
B
E
B
G
B
G
E
AE
D
AE
D
B
G
E
AE
D
AE
D
G
E
B
AE
D
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
AC
G
D
D
D
D
B
G
CF
AE
AE
BF
AC
G
E
AC
AF
E
G
E
B
B
G
E
BF
AE
D
AE
B
G
E
E
AC
G
AC
G
CF
D
D
AE
D
AE
D
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
G
E
D
D
D
D
F
Spring St Spring St
Spring Mountain RdSpring Mountain Rd
Meadowood Ln Meadowood Ln
Mund RdMund Rd
Pratt AvePratt Ave
Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave
Pope St Pope St
Grayson AveGrayson Ave
Chaix Ln Chaix Ln
White Ln White Ln
Dowdell Ln Dowdell L
M
n
ills Ln Mills Ln
Stice Ln Stice Ln
Fulton Ln Fulton Ln
Lewelling Ln Lewelling Ln
Crane Ave Crane Ave
Vallejo St Vallejo St
Mitchell DrMitchell Dr
Hunt Ave Hunt Ave
Conn Valley RdConn Valley Rd
Taplin RdTaplin Rd
St. Helena
Thoman
Barro
Zinfandel
Zinfandel Ln
29 128
Silverado Trl N
Elmhurst
Ave
Hillview Pl
Madrona Ave
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Charter Oak Ave
Spring St
Railroad Ave
Library Ln
Starr Ave
College Ave
Oak Ave
Hudson Ave
Valley View St
Deer Park Rd
Silverado Trl S
S Howell Mountain RdS Howell Mountain Rd
35 34
32 33
31 30
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18 17
16 15
14 13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4 36
0 1 2
Miles
Study Intersection
Oak Avenue Extension Scenario
Study Intersection (Grayson Ave Terminus)
Weekday AM (Weekday PM) [Weekend MD]
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
XX (YY) [ZZ]
Oak Avenue Extension Scenario
Study Intersection (Charter Oak Ave Terminus)
#
Signalized
Intersection
STOP Stop Sign
Adams Street Extension Scenario
Study Intersection
Pope Street Improvement Scenario
Study Intersection
34 25
35/36
36 Agenda Item #13.1.

Adams Street Extension Traffic Rerouting Assumptions
FIGURE 4
Hillview
Pl
Spring
St
Spring M o untain Rd
Pratt Ave
Pope
St
Grayson Ave
Sulp h ur Springs Ave
Crane AveCrane Ave
Vallejo
St
Mitchell Dr
Zinfandel Ln
Spring
St
Madrona Ave
Fulton Ln
Silverado Trail N
Main St
Main St
Adams St Extension
Oak Ave
Main St
Silverado Trail N
Hillview
Pl
Spring
St
Spring M o untain Rd
Pratt Ave
Pope
St
Grayson Ave
Sulp h ur Springs Ave
Crane Ave
Vallejo
St
Mitchell Dr
Silverado Trail N
Silverado Trail N
Zinfandel Ln
Spring
St
Madrona Ave
Fulton Ln
St. Helena
Zinfandel
County of
Adams St
Adams St Extension
Trac Reduction Trac Increase Negligible Trac Impact
Trac Reduction Trac Increase Adams St Extension
Adams St
Silverado Trail N
St. Helena
Zinfandel
Agenda Item #13.1.

Oak Ave Extension (Grayson Avenue Terminus) Traffic Rerouting Assumptions FIGURE 5A
Hillview
Pl
Spring
St
Spring M o untain Rd
Pratt Ave
Pope
St
Grayson Ave
Sulp h ur Springs Ave
Vallejo
St
Mitchell Dr
Zinfandel Ln
Spring
St
Fulton Ln
Silverado Trail N
Main St
Main St
Oak Ave
Madrona Ave
Crane AveCrane Ave
Trac Reduction Trac Increase Oak Ave Extension
Silverado Trail N
Zinfandel
Oak Ave Extension
St. Helena
Adams St
Agenda Item #13.1.

Oak Ave Extension (Charter Oak Terminus) Traffic Rerouting Assumptions FIGURE 5B
Hillview
Pl
Spring
St
Spring M o untain Rd
Pratt Ave
Pope
St
Grayson Ave
Sulp h ur Springs Ave
Crane Ave
Vallejo
St
Mitchell Dr
Zinfandel Ln
Spring
St
Fulton Ln
Silverado Trail N
Main St
Main St
Oak Ave
Madrona Ave
Hillview
Pl
Spring
St
Spring M o untain Rd
Pratt Ave
Pope
St
Grayson Ave
Sulp h ur Springs Ave
Vallejo
St
Mitchell Dr
Zinfandel Ln
Spring
St
Fulton Ln
Silverado Trail N
Main St
Main St
Oak Ave
Madrona Ave
Crane AveCrane Ave
Trac Reduction Trac Increase Oak Ave Extension
Silverado Trail N
Zinfandel
Adams St
Oak Ave Extension St. Helena
Agenda Item #13.1.

Pope Street Bridge Widening Traffic Rerouting Assumptions FIGURE 6
Hillview
Pl
Spring
St
Spring M o untain Rd
Pratt Ave
Pope
St
Grayson Ave
Sulp h ur Springs Ave
Vallejo
St
Mitchell Dr
Zinfandel Ln
Spring
St
Fulton Ln
Silverado Trail N
Main St
Main St
Pope St Bridge Widening Oak Ave
Madrona Ave
Crane AveCrane Ave
Trac Reduction Trac Increase Pope St Bridge Widening
Silverado Trail N
St. Helena
Zinfandel
Adams St
Agenda Item #13.1.

Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Control — Adams Street Scenario FIGURE 7
10 (10) [10]50 (60) [10]
30 (30) [30]
10 (10) [10]
40 (20) [20]
100 (70) [20]

4. Hudson Ave/Madrona Ave
40 (40) [30]
230 (220) [90]
40 (60) [40]
50 (40) [40]
30 (50) [40]
250 (160) [40]

5. Valley View St/Spring St
110 (180) [90]
60 (30) [30]
130 (160) [70]210 (70) [20]
180 (90) [30]
30 (10) [20]

6. Valley View St/Crane Ave/Grayson Ave
10 (30) [10]
10 (40) [10] 10 (20) [10] 130 (140) [70]
140 (160) [50]
20 (30) [10]

7. Crane Ave/Sulphur Spring Ave
10 (10) [20]
720 (940) [640]
40 (40) [30]
10 (10) [10]
0 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10] 10 (10) [10] 900 (690) [620] 30 (30) [20]
30 (60) [20]
0 (10) [0]
30 (50) [30]

8. Main St/Pratt Ave
50 (30) [30]
740 (920) [650]
30 (70) [40]
30 (40) [30] 130 (40) [30] 810 (710) [630]

9. Main St/Elmhurst Ave
40 (30) [20]
610 (650) [520]
20 (20) [10]
100 (120) [80]
50 (50) [20]
50 (20) [40] 110 (60) [50] 610 (610) [560] 120 (80) [50] 80 (180) [80]
60 (50) [20]
20 (20) [10]

10. Main St/Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
120 (210) [100]
20 (10) [10]
30 (30) [10]
150 (110) [60]
20 (30) [10]
10 (10) [10]

11. Railroad Ave/Fulton Ln
Madrona Ave
Hudson Ave
Grayson Ave
Valley View St Crane Ave
Sulphur Spring Ave
Crane Ave
Pratt Ave
Main St
Elmhurst Ave
Main St
Madrona Ave Fulton Ln Main St
Fulton Ln
Railroad Ave
50 (40) [20]
420 (440) [350]
50 (40) [30]
60 (80) [40]
90 (100) [40]
40 (30) [30] 70 (40) [40] 440 (440) [420] 170 (170) [150] 190 (180) [160]
70 (80) [40]
30 (70) [40]

12. Main St/Adams St
Adams St
Main St
80 (60) [40]
110 (90) [50]
60 (30) [10]
30 (20) [10]
200 (220) [150]
80 (90) [60] 20 (30) [10] 70 (80) [40] 60 (60) [40]
40 (100) [50]
200 (260) [160]
20 (60) [10]

13. Railroad Ave/Adams St
Adams St
Railroad Ave
10 (40) [10]
0 (0) [0]
0 (10) [0]
40 (70) [20]
190 (140) [120]
30 (10) [10] 10 (50) [20] 0 (10) [0] 0 (10) [0]
10 (0) [0]
180 (200) [130]
0 (0) [0]

14. Library Ln/Adams St
500 (490) [380]
110 (80) [70]
490 (510) [460]20 (30) [30]
20 (30) [20]
40 (60) [20]

15. Main St/Hunt Ave
10 (10) [10]10 (10) [20]10 (10) [40]
50 (30) [40]
60 (80) [40]
20 (10) [20] 10 (20) [20] 10 (10) [40] 140 (190) [50]
190 (140) [60]
40 (50) [20]
10 (10) [30]

16. Railroad Ave/Church St/Hunt Ave
30 (20) [20]
30 (30) [0] 20 (20) [10] 120 (150) [90]
60 (70) [70]
40 (50) [30]

17. Oak Ave/Mitchell Dr
80 (100) [90]
610 (560) [460]
80 (70) [50]
170 (210) [140] 10 (10) [10] 490 (510) [450] 80 (80) [40] 100 (80) [40]
40 (30) [30]
200 (160) [110]

18. Main St/Mitchell Dr/Pope St
Adams St
Library Ln
Hunt Ave
Railroad Ave Church St
Mitchell Dr
Oak Ave
rD llehctiM tS epoP Main St
50 (70) [40]
820 (750) [680]
80 (70) [20]
70 (70) [30] 120 (60) [20] 760 (860) [720]

19. Main St/Grayson Avenue
100 (140) [40]
850 (790) [710]
20 (30) [10]
120 (140) [50] 40 (50) [20] 790 (880) [730]

20. Main St/Sulphur Springs Ave
110 (90) [40]
10 (10) [10]
20 (20) [10]
80 (100) [60]
30 (20) [10]
20 (10) [10]

21. Starr Ave/Hunt Ave
10 (30) [20]
190 (230) [170] 30 (20) [20] 100 (110) [40]
90 (80) [50]
340 (260) [190]

22. Starr Ave/Pope Street
120 (40) [30]
0 (0) [10]
50 (30) [10]
20 (40) [30]
160 (270) [120]
120 (40) [30] 20 (20) [20] 10 (0) [10] 10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [20]
270 (260) [200]
90 (20) [20]

23. Paseo Grand Dr/College Ave/Pope Street
Grayson Avenue
Main St
Hunt Ave
Starr Ave
Pope Street
Starr Ave
Pope Street
Paseo Grand Dr College Ave
Hunt Ave
Main St
Sulphur Springs Ave
Main St
Spring St
Valley View St
30 (30) [20]
560 (620) [520]
20 (30) [10]
20 (30) [30] 30 (30) [20] 630 (780) [540]

24. Silverado Trail/Pratt Ave
725 (738) [634]
38 (17) [38]
738 (887) [668]12 (13) [12]
15 (22) [26]
25 (38) [24]

25. Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Rd
175 (102) [76]
625 (628) [594]
138 (127) [78]
82 (173) [42] 215 (218) [154] 548 (707) [538]

26. Silverado Trail/Pope Street
Pratt Ave
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
Silverado Trail
Pope Street
Silverado Trail
0 (10) [0]
890 (810) [690]
10 (0) [10]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [10] 10 (20) [10] 880 (910) [730] 10 (10) [10]
10 (20) [10]
0 (10) [0]
0 (10) [0]

27. Main St/Mills Ln
Mills Ln
Main St
20 (20) [20]
750 (690) [550]130 (120) [130]
10 (20) [20]
10 (10) [10]
10 (30) [40] 30 (10) [10] 820 (840) [650] 10 (30) [40]
10 (20) [30]
10 (0) [10]
70 (70) [60]

28. Main St/Charter Oak Ave
10 (10) [10]70 (90) [90]20 (30) [20]
10 (10) [0]
10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [0] 10 (10) [0] 130 (90) [70] 20 (10) [10]
20 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10]
30 (30) [20]

29. Oak Ave/Pine St
30 (20) [20]80 (90) [90]
80 (130) [80]
10 (10) [10]
70 (40) [30]
70 (40) [10] 30 (10) [10] 120 (110) [60] 30 (30) [10]
30 (20) [20]
50 (40) [30]
40 (60) [60]

30. Oak Ave/Adams St
20 (40) [30]
80 (110) [90]
20 (20) [20]
40 (70) [40]
70 (40) [40]
40 (60) [40] 30 (50) [20] 120 (100) [70] 50 (40) [30]
80 (50) [40]
70 (80) [40]
10 (20) [30]

31. Oak Ave/Spring St
Charter Oak Ave
Main St
Adams St
Oak Ave
Spring St
Oak Ave
Pine St
Oak Ave
140 (100) [80]
570 (540) [420]
40 (30) [30]
90 (70) [60] 40 (40) [40] 490 (530) [440]

32. Main St/Spring St
10 (0) [10]
0 (0) [0]
10 (0) [0]
30 (50) [30]
130 (120) [90]
0 (0) [0] 70 (110) [70] 10 (0) [0] 30 (60) [30]
100 (70) [40]
320 (230) [200]
0 (0) [10]

33. Church St/Pope St
150 (110) [120]570 (630) [520]
20 (20) [20]
10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10]
100 (90) [110] 10 (10) [10] 630 (790) [550] 10 (10) [10] 10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10]
20 (20) [20]

34. Silverado Trail/Adams St
Spring St
Main St
Adams St
Silverado Trail
Pope St
Church St

STOP STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOPSTOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
G
E
B
G
E
B
E
B
G
B
G
E
AE
D
AE
D
B
G
E
AE
D
AE
D
G
E
B
AE
D
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
AC
G
D
D
D
D
B
G
CF
AE
AE
BF
AC
G
E
AC
AF
E
G
E
B
B
G
E
BF
AE
D
AE
B
G
E
E
AC
G
AC
G
CF
D
D
AE
D
AE
D
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
G
E
D
D
D
D
AE
BF
AE
D
F
Spring St Spring St
Spring Mountain RdSpring Mountain Rd
Meadowood Ln Meadowood Ln
Mund Rd
Pratt AvePratt Ave
Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave
Pope St Pope St
Grayson AveGrayson Ave
Chaix Ln Chaix Ln
White Ln White Ln
Dowdell LnDowdell
M
Ln
ills Ln Mills Ln
Stice Ln Stice Ln
Fulton Ln Fulton Ln
Lewelling Ln Lewelling Ln
Crane Ave Crane Ave
Vallejo St Vallejo St
Mitchell DrMitchell Dr
Hunt Ave Hunt Ave
Conn Valley RdConn Valley Rd
Taplin RdTaplin Rd
St. Helena
Thoman
Barro
Zinfandel
Zinfandel Ln
29 128
Silverado Trl N
Elmhurst
Ave
Hillview Pl
Madrona Ave
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Charter Oak Ave
Spring St
Railroad Ave
Library Ln
Starr Ave
College Ave
Oak Ave
Hudson Ave
Valley View St
Deer Park Rd
Silverado Trl S
S Howell Mountain RdS Howell Mountain Rd
35 34
32 33
31 30
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18 17
16 15
14 13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4 36
0 1 2
M iles
Study Intersection
Oak Avenue Extension Scenario
Study Intersection (Grayson Ave Terminus)
Weekday AM (Weekday PM) [Weekend MD]
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
XX (YY) [ZZ]
Oak Avenue Extension Scenario
Study Intersection (Charter Oak Ave Terminus)
#
Signalized
Intersection
STOP Stop Sign
Adams Street Extension Scenario
Study Intersection
Pope Street Improvement Scenario
Study Intersection
34 25
35/36
36 Agenda Item #13.1.

Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Control — Oak Avenue Extension (Grayson Avenue Terminus)
FIGURE 8A
10 (10) [10]
41 (39) [7]
30 (30) [30]
10 (10) [10]
40 (20) [20]
85 (49) [14]

4. Hudson Ave/Madrona Ave
40 (40) [30]
221 (199) [87]
40 (60) [40]
50 (40) [40]
30 (50) [40]
235 (139) [34]

5. Valley View St/Spring St
101 (159) [87]
60 (30) [30]
115 (139) [64]210 (70) [20]
180 (90) [30]
30 (10) [20]

6. Valley View St/Crane Ave/Grayson Ave
10 (30) [10]
10 (40) [10] 10 (20) [10] 115 (119) [64]
131 (139) [47]
20 (30) [10]

7. Crane Ave/Sulphur Spring Ave
10 (10) [20]
720 (940) [640]
40 (40) [30]
10 (10) [10]
0 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10] 10 (10) [10] 900 (690) [620] 30 (30) [20]
30 (60) [20]
0 (10) [0]
30 (50) [30]

8. Main St/Pratt Ave
50 (30) [30]
740 (920) [650]
30 (70) [40]
30 (40) [30] 130 (40) [30] 810 (710) [630]

9. Main St/Elmhurst Ave
19 (21) [13]
550 (590) [460]
20 (20) [10]
160 (180) [140]
50 (50) [20]
15 (11) [26] 180 (120) [110] 540 (550) [500] 120 (80) [50] 80 (180) [80]
60 (50) [20]
20 (20) [10]

10. Main St/Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
120 (210) [100]
20 (10) [10]
30 (30) [10]
150 (110) [60]
20 (30) [10]
10 (10) [10]

11. Railroad Ave/Fulton Ln
Madrona Ave
Hudson Ave
Grayson Ave
Valley View St Crane Ave
Sulphur Spring Ave
Crane Ave
Pratt Ave
Main St
Elmhurst Ave
Main St
Madrona Ave Fulton Ln Main St
Fulton Ln
Railroad Ave
50 (40) [20]
489 (481) [403]
50 (40) [30]
60 (80) [40]
90 (100) [40]
40 (30) [30] 70 (40) [40] 435 (461) [456] 70 (80) [40]
40 (70) [40]
70 (80) [40]
30 (70) [40]

12. Main St/Adams St
Adams St
Main St
80 (60) [40]
110 (90) [50]
60 (30) [10]
30 (20) [10]
100 (130) [40]
80 (90) [60] 20 (30) [10] 70 (80) [40] 60 (60) [40]
40 (100) [50]
50 (150) [40]
20 (60) [10]

13. Railroad Ave/Adams St
Adams St
Railroad Ave
10 (40) [10]
0 (0) [0]
0 (10) [0]
40 (70) [20]
90 (50) [10]
30 (10) [10] 10 (50) [20] 0 (10) [0] 0 (10) [0]
10 (0) [0]
30 (90) [10]
0 (0) [0]

14. Library Ln/Adams St
569 (531) [433]
110 (80) [70]
485 (531) [496]20 (30) [30]
20 (30) [20]
40 (60) [20]

15. Main St/Hunt Ave
10 (10) [10]10 (10) [20]10 (10) [40]
50 (30) [40]
60 (80) [40]
20 (10) [20] 10 (20) [20] 10 (10) [40] 140 (190) [50]
190 (140) [60]
40 (50) [20]
10 (10) [30]

16. Railroad Ave/Church St/Hunt Ave
10 (10) [10]
150 (130) [80]
10 (10) [10]
30 (20) [20]
30 (30) [10]
10 (10) [10] 20 (20) [10] 92 (66) [71] 120 (150) [90]
60 (70) [70]
40 (50) [30]
12 (6) [1]

17. Oak Ave/Mitchell Dr
80 (100) [90]
569 (521) [473]
80 (70) [50]
170 (210) [140] 10 (10) [10] 437 (477) [457] 100 (110) [60] 150 (120) [70]
52 (36) [31]
188 (154) [109]

18. Main St/Mitchell Dr/Pope St
Adams St
Library Ln
Hunt Ave
Railroad Ave Church St
Mitchell Dr
Oak Ave
rD llehctiM tS epoP Main St
140 (160) [110]839 (751) [703]
20 (30) [10]
190 (160) [110] 80 (30) [10] 735 (851) [736]

19. Main St/Grayson Avenue
91 (119) [37]
959 (881) [803]
20 (30) [10]
105 (119) [44] 40 (50) [20] 885 (961) [826]

20. Main St/Sulphur Springs Ave
110 (90) [40]
10 (10) [10]
20 (20) [10]
80 (100) [60]
30 (20) [10]
20 (10) [10]

21. Starr Ave/Hunt Ave
10 (30) [20]
210 (260) [190] 30 (20) [20] 100 (110) [40]
90 (80) [50]
390 (300) [220]

22. Starr Ave/Pope Street
120 (40) [30]
0 (0) [10]
50 (30) [10]
20 (40) [30]
180 (300) [140]
120 (40) [30] 20 (20) [20] 10 (0) [10] 10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [20]
320 (300) [230]
90 (20) [20]

23. Paseo Grand Dr/College Ave/Pope Street
Grayson Avenue
Main St
Hunt Ave
Starr Ave
Pope Street
Starr Ave
Pope Street
Paseo Grand Dr College Ave
Hunt Ave
Main St
Sulphur Springs Ave
Main St
Spring St
Valley View St
30 (30) [20]
560 (620) [520]
20 (30) [10]
20 (30) [30] 30 (30) [20] 630 (780) [540]

24. Silverado Trail/Pratt Ave
580 (640) [520]
40 (20) [40]
640 (800) [560]10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [20]
30 (50) [30]

25. Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Rd
220 (130) [100]480 (530) [480]
140 (130) [80]
100 (200) [60] 220 (230) [160] 450 (620) [430]

26. Silverado Trail/Pope Street
Pratt Ave
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
Silverado Trail
Pope Street
Silverado Trail
0 (10) [0]
849 (771) [703]
10 (0) [10]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [10] 10 (20) [10] 815 (871) [736] 10 (10) [10]
10 (20) [10]
0 (10) [0]
0 (10) [0]

27. Main St/Mills Ln
Mills Ln
Main St
20 (20) [20]
709 (651) [563]130 (120) [130]
10 (20) [20]
10 (10) [10]
10 (30) [40] 30 (10) [10] 755 (801) [656] 10 (30) [40]
10 (20) [30]
10 (0) [10]
70 (70) [60]

28. Main St/Charter Oak Ave
10 (10) [10]
160 (180) [160]
20 (30) [20]
10 (10) [0]
10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [0] 10 (10) [0] 250 (180) [150] 20 (10) [10]
20 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10]
30 (30) [20]

29. Oak Ave/Pine St
30 (20) [20]
170 (180) [160]
80 (130) [80]
10 (10) [10]
70 (40) [30]
70 (40) [10] 30 (10) [10] 240 (200) [140] 30 (30) [10]
30 (20) [20]
50 (40) [30]
40 (60) [60]

30. Oak Ave/Adams St
20 (40) [30]
170 (200) [160]
80 (60) [30]
40 (70) [40]
70 (40) [40]
40 (60) [40] 30 (50) [20] 240 (190) [150] 50 (40) [30]
80 (50) [40]
70 (80) [40]
38 (44) [39]

31. Oak Ave/Spring St
Charter Oak Ave
Main St
Adams St
Oak Ave
Spring St
Oak Ave
Pine St
Oak Ave
140 (100) [80]
579 (541) [463]
100 (70) [40]
90 (70) [60] 68 (64) [49] 457 (527) [467]

32. Main St/Spring St
10 (0) [10]
0 (0) [0]
10 (0) [0]
30 (50) [30]
150 (150) [110]
0 (0) [0] 70 (110) [70] 10 (0) [0] 30 (60) [30]
100 (70) [40]
370 (270) [230]
0 (0) [10]

33. Church St/Pope St
60 (40) [10]
90 (100) [40] 40 (30) [10] 120 (90) [80]
90 (90) [70]
130 (100) [50]

35. Oak Ave/Grayson Ave
10 (10) [10]
150 (130) [80]
10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10]
30 (60) [70]
10 (10) [10] 10 (10) [10] 160 (120) [90] 10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10]
60 (30) [40]
10 (10) [10]

36. Oak Ave/Charter Oak Ave
Spring St
Main St
Grayson Ave
Oak Ave
Charter Oak Ave
Oak Ave
Pope St
Church St

STOP STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOPSTOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
G
E
B
G
E
B
E
B
G
B
G
E
AE
D
AE
D
B
G
E
AE
D
AE
D
G
E
B
AE
D
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
AC
G
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
AE
AE
BF
AC
G
E
AC
AF
E
G
E
B
B
G
E
BF
AE
D
AE
B
G
E
E
AC
G
AC
G
CF
D
D
AE
D
AE
D
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
G
E
D
D
D
D
B
G
E
D
D
D
D
F
Spring St Spring St
Spring Mountain RdSpring Mountain Rd
Meadowood Ln Meadowood Ln
Mund Rd
Pratt AvePratt Ave
Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave
Pope St Pope St
Grayson AveGrayson Ave
Chaix Ln Chaix Ln
White Ln White Ln
Dowdell LnDowdell
M
Ln
ills Ln Mills Ln
Stice Ln Stice Ln
Fulton Ln Fulton Ln
Lewelling Ln Lewelling Ln
Crane Ave Crane Ave
Vallejo St Vallejo St
Mitchell DrMitchell Dr
Hunt Ave Hunt Ave
Conn Valley RdConn Valley Rd
Taplin RdTaplin Rd
St. Helena
Thoman
Barro
Zinfandel
Zinfandel Ln
29 128
Silverado Trl N
Elmhurst
Ave
Hillview Pl
Madrona Ave
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Charter Oak Ave
Spring St
Railroad Ave
Library Ln
Starr Ave
College Ave
Oak Ave
Hudson Ave
Valley View St
Deer Park Rd
Silverado Trl S
S Howell Mountain RdS Howell Mountain Rd
35 34
32 33
31 30
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18 17
16 15
14 13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4 36
0 1 2
M iles
Study Intersection
Oak Avenue Extension Scenario
Study Intersection (Grayson Ave Terminus)
Weekday AM (Weekday PM) [Weekend MD]
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
XX (YY) [ZZ]
Oak Avenue Extension Scenario
Study Intersection (Charter Oak Ave Terminus)
#
Signalized
Intersection
STOP Stop Sign
Adams Street Extension Scenario
Study Intersection
Pope Street Improvement Scenario
Study Intersection
34 25
35/36
36 Agenda Item #13.1.

Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Control — Oak Avenue Extension (Charter Oak Avenue Terminus)
FIGURE 8B
10 (10) [10]
41 (46) [7]
30 (30) [30]
10 (10) [10]
40 (20) [20]
88 (56) [14]

4. Hudson Ave/Madrona Ave
40 (40) [30]
221 (206) [87]
40 (60) [40]
50 (40) [40]
30 (50) [40]
238 (146) [34]

5. Valley View St/Spring St
101 (166) [87]
60 (30) [30]
118 (146) [64]210 (70) [20]
180 (90) [30]
30 (10) [20]

6. Valley View St/Crane Ave/Grayson Ave
10 (30) [10]
10 (40) [10] 10 (20) [10] 118 (126) [64]
131 (146) [47]
20 (30) [10]

7. Crane Ave/Sulphur Spring Ave
10 (10) [20]
720 (940) [640]
40 (40) [30]
10 (10) [10]
0 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10] 10 (10) [10] 900 (690) [620] 30 (30) [20]
30 (60) [20]
0 (10) [0]
30 (50) [30]

8. Main St/Pratt Ave
50 (30) [30]
740 (920) [650]
30 (70) [40]
30 (40) [30] 130 (40) [30] 810 (710) [630]

9. Main St/Elmhurst Ave
19 (24) [13]
550 (590) [460]
20 (20) [10]
160 (180) [140]
50 (50) [20]
22 (14) [26] 180 (120) [110] 540 (550) [500] 120 (80) [50] 80 (180) [80]
60 (50) [20]
20 (20) [10]

10. Main St/Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
120 (210) [100]
20 (10) [10]
30 (30) [10]
150 (110) [60]
20 (30) [10]
10 (10) [10]

11. Railroad Ave/Fulton Ln
Madrona Ave
Hudson Ave
Grayson Ave
Valley View St Crane Ave
Sulphur Spring Ave
Crane Ave
Pratt Ave
Main St
Elmhurst Ave
Main St
Madrona Ave Fulton Ln Main St
Fulton Ln
Railroad Ave
50 (40) [20]
489 (484) [403]
50 (40) [30]
60 (80) [40]
90 (100) [40]
40 (30) [30] 70 (40) [40] 442 (464) [456] 70 (80) [40]
40 (70) [40]
70 (80) [40]
30 (70) [40]

12. Main St/Adams St
Adams St
Main St
80 (60) [40]
110 (90) [50]
60 (30) [10]
30 (20) [10]
100 (130) [40]
80 (90) [60] 20 (30) [10] 70 (80) [40] 60 (60) [40]
40 (100) [50]
50 (150) [40]
20 (60) [10]

13. Railroad Ave/Adams St
Adams St
Railroad Ave
10 (40) [10]
0 (0) [0]
0 (10) [0]
40 (70) [20]
90 (50) [10]
30 (10) [10] 10 (50) [20] 0 (10) [0] 0 (10) [0]
10 (0) [0]
30 (90) [10]
0 (0) [0]

14. Library Ln/Adams St
569 (534) [433]
110 (80) [70]
492 (534) [496]20 (30) [30]
20 (30) [20]
40 (60) [20]

15. Main St/Hunt Ave
10 (10) [10]10 (10) [20]10 (10) [40]
50 (30) [40]
60 (80) [40]
20 (10) [20] 10 (20) [20] 10 (10) [40] 140 (190) [50]
190 (140) [60]
40 (50) [20]
10 (10) [30]

16. Railroad Ave/Church St/Hunt Ave
10 (10) [10]90 (80) [70]10 (10) [10]
10 (20) [20]
30 (30) [10]
0 (10) [10] 20 (20) [10] 110 (80) [80] 120 (150) [90]
60 (70) [70]
40 (50) [30]
10 (10) [10]

17. Oak Ave/Mitchell Dr
80 (100) [90]
629 (564) [483]
80 (70) [50]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
170 (210) [140] 10 (10) [10] 472 (504) [466] 100 (110) [60] 150 (120) [70]
40 (30) [30]
200 (160) [110]

18. Main St/Mitchell Dr/Pope St
Adams St
Library Ln
Hunt Ave
Railroad Ave Church St
Mitchell Dr
Oak Ave
rD llehctiM tS epoP Main St
50 (70) [40]
929 (834) [773]
80 (70) [20]
70 (70) [30] 120 (60) [20] 852 (934) [816]

19. Main St/Grayson Avenue
91 (126) [37]
959 (874) [803]
20 (30) [10]
108 (126) [44] 40 (50) [20] 882 (954) [826]

20. Main St/Sulphur Springs Ave
110 (90) [40]
10 (10) [10]
20 (20) [10]
80 (100) [60]
30 (20) [10]
20 (10) [10]

21. Starr Ave/Hunt Ave
10 (30) [20]
210 (260) [190] 30 (20) [20] 100 (110) [40]
90 (80) [50]
390 (300) [220]

22. Starr Ave/Pope Street
120 (40) [30]
0 (0) [10]
50 (30) [10]
20 (40) [30]
180 (300) [140]
120 (40) [30] 20 (20) [20] 10 (0) [10] 10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [20]
320 (300) [230]
90 (20) [20]

23. Paseo Grand Dr/College Ave/Pope Street
Grayson Avenue
Main St
Hunt Ave
Starr Ave
Pope Street
Starr Ave
Pope Street
Paseo Grand Dr College Ave
Hunt Ave
Main St
Sulphur Springs Ave
Main St
Spring St
Valley VIEW St
30 (30) [20]
560 (620) [520]
20 (30) [10]
20 (30) [30] 30 (30) [20] 630 (780) [540]

24. Silverado Trail/Pratt Ave
580 (640) [520]
40 (20) [40]
640 (800) [560]10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [20]
30 (50) [30]

25. Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Rd
220 (130) [100]480 (530) [480]
140 (130) [80]
100 (200) [60] 220 (230) [160] 450 (620) [430]

26. Silverado Trail/Pope Street
Pratt Ave
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
Silverado Trail
Pope Street
Silverado Trail
0 (10) [0]
999 (894) [783]
10 (0) [10]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [10] 10 (20) [10] 972 (984) [826] 10 (10) [10]
10 (20) [10]
0 (10) [0]
0 (10) [0]

27. Main St/Mills Ln
Mills Ln
Main St
110 (100) [90]
769 (694) [573]130 (120) [130]
10 (20) [20]
10 (10) [10]
120 (110) [120] 30 (10) [10] 802 (834) [666] 10 (30) [40] 10 (20) [30]
10 (0) [10]
70 (70) [60]

28. Main St/Charter Oak Ave
10 (10) [10]
160 (170) [160]
20 (30) [20]
10 (10) [0]
10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [0] 10 (10) [0] 240 (170) [150] 20 (10) [10]
20 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10]
30 (30) [20]

29. Oak Ave/Pine St
30 (20) [20]
170 (170) [160]
80 (130) [80]
10 (10) [10]
70 (40) [30]
70 (40) [10] 30 (10) [10] 230 (190) [140] 30 (30) [10]
30 (20) [20]
50 (40) [30]
40 (60) [60]

30. Oak Ave/Adams St
20 (40) [30]
170 (190) [160]
20 (20) [20]
40 (70) [40]
70 (40) [40]
40 (60) [40] 30 (50) [20] 230 (180) [150] 50 (40) [30]
80 (50) [40]
70 (80) [40]
10 (20) [30]

31. Oak Ave/Spring St
Charter Oak Ave
Main St
Adams St
Oak Ave
Spring St
Oak Ave
Pine St
Oak Ave
140 (100) [80]
639 (584) [473]
40 (30) [30]
90 (70) [60] 40 (40) [40] 492 (554) [476]

32. Main St/Spring St
10 (0) [10]
0 (0) [0]
10 (0) [0]
30 (50) [30]
150 (150) [110]
0 (0) [0] 70 (110) [70] 10 (0) [0] 30 (60) [30]
100 (70) [40]
370 (270) [230]
0 (0) [10]

33. Church St/Pope St
10 (10) [10]
30 (60) [70] 110 (80) [80]
90 (80) [70]
60 (30) [40]

36. Oak Ave/Charter Oak Ave
Spring St
Main St
Charter Oak Ave
Oak Ave
Pope St
Church St

STOP STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOPSTOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOP STOP
G
E
B
G
E
B
E
B
G
B
G
E
AE
D
AE
D
B
G
E
AE
D
AE
D
G
E
B
AE
D
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
AC
G
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
AE
BF
AE
BF
AC
G
E
AC
AF
E
G
E
B
B
G
E
BF
AE
D
AE
B
G
E
E
AC
G
AC
G
CF
D
D
AE
D
AE
D
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
G
E
D
D
D
D
B
A
E
Spring St Spring St
Spring Mountain RdSpring Mountain Rd
Meadowood Ln Meadowood Ln
Mund Rd
Pratt AvePratt Ave
Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave
Pope St Pope St
Grayson AveGrayson Ave
Chaix Ln Chaix Ln
White Ln White Ln
Dowdell LnDowdell
M
Ln
ills Ln Mills Ln
Stice Ln Stice Ln
Fulton Ln Fulton Ln
Lewelling Ln Lewelling Ln
Crane Ave Crane Ave
Vallejo St Vallejo St
Mitchell DrMitchell Dr
Hunt Ave Hunt Ave
Conn Valley RdConn Valley Rd
Taplin RdTaplin Rd
St. Helena
Thoman
Barro
Zinfandel
Zinfandel Ln
29 128
Silverado Trl N
Elmhurst
Ave
Hillview Pl
Madrona Ave
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Charter Oak Ave
Spring St
Railroad Ave
Library Ln
Starr Ave
College Ave
Oak Ave
Hudson Ave
Valley View St
Deer Park Rd
Silverado Trl S
S Howell Mountain RdS Howell Mountain Rd
35 34
32 33
31 30
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18 17
16 15
14 13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4 36
0 1 2
M iles
Study Intersection
Oak Avenue Extension Scenario
Study Intersection (Grayson Ave Terminus)
Weekday AM (Weekday PM) [Weekend MD]
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
XX (YY) [ZZ]
Oak Avenue Extension Scenario
Study Intersection (Charter Oak Ave Terminus)
#
Signalized
Intersection
STOP Stop Sign
Adams Street Extension Scenario
Study Intersection
Pope Street Improvement Scenario
Study Intersection
34 25
35/36
36 Agenda Item #13.1.

Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations and Traffic Control — Pope Street Scenario FIGURE 9
10 (10) [10]50 (60) [10]
30 (30) [30]
10 (10) [10]
40 (20) [20]
100 (70) [20]

4. Hudson Ave/Madrona Ave
40 (40) [30]
230 (220) [90]
40 (60) [40]
50 (40) [40]
30 (50) [40]
250 (160) [40]

5. Valley View St/Spring St
110 (180) [90]
60 (30) [30]
130 (160) [70]210 (70) [20]
180 (90) [30]
30 (10) [20]

6. Valley View St/Crane Ave/Grayson Ave
10 (30) [10]
10 (40) [10] 10 (20) [10] 130 (140) [70]
140 (160) [50]
20 (30) [10]

7. Crane Ave/Sulphur Spring Ave
10 (10) [20]
720 (940) [640]
40 (40) [30]
10 (10) [10]
0 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10] 10 (10) [10] 900 (690) [620] 30 (30) [20]
30 (60) [20]
0 (10) [0]
30 (50) [30]

8. Main St/Pratt Ave
50 (30) [30]
740 (920) [650]
30 (70) [40]
30 (40) [30] 130 (40) [30] 810 (710) [630]

9. Main St/Elmhurst Ave
40 (30) [20]
610 (650) [520]
20 (20) [10]
100 (120) [80]
50 (50) [20]
50 (20) [40] 110 (60) [50] 610 (610) [560] 120 (80) [50] 80 (180) [80]
60 (50) [20]
20 (20) [10]

10. Main St/Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
120 (210) [100]
20 (10) [10]
30 (30) [10]
150 (110) [60]
20 (30) [10]
10 (10) [10]

11. Railroad Ave/Fulton Ln
Madrona Ave
Hudson Ave
Grayson Ave
Valley View St Crane Ave
Sulphur Spring Ave
Crane Ave
Pratt Ave
Main St
Elmhurst Ave
Main St
Madrona Ave Fulton Ln
Main St
Fulton Ln
Railroad Ave
50 (40) [20]
570 (550) [470]
50 (40) [30]
60 (80) [40]
90 (100) [40]
40 (30) [30] 70 (40) [40] 540 (530) [530] 70 (80) [40]
40 (70) [40]
70 (80) [40]
30 (70) [40]

12. Main St/Adams St
Adams St
Main St
80 (60) [40]
110 (90) [50]
60 (30) [10]
30 (20) [10]
100 (130) [40]
80 (90) [60] 20 (30) [10] 70 (80) [40] 60 (60) [40]
40 (100) [50]
50 (150) [40]
20 (60) [10]

13. Railroad Ave/Adams St
Adams St
Railroad Ave
10 (40) [10]
0 (0) [0]
0 (10) [0]
40 (70) [20]
90 (50) [10]
30 (10) [10] 10 (50) [20] 0 (10) [0] 0 (10) [0]
10 (0) [0]
30 (90) [10]
0 (0) [0]

14. Library Ln/Adams St
650 (600) [500]
110 (80) [70]
590 (600) [570]20 (30) [30]
20 (30) [20]
40 (60) [20]

15. Main St/Hunt Ave
10 (10) [10]10 (10) [20]10 (10) [40]
50 (30) [40]
60 (80) [40]
20 (10) [20] 10 (20) [20] 10 (10) [40] 140 (190) [50]
190 (140) [60]
40 (50) [20]
10 (10) [30]

16. Railroad Ave/Church St/Hunt Ave
30 (20) [20]
30 (30) [0] 20 (20) [10] 120 (150) [90]
60 (70) [70]
40 (50) [30]

17. Oak Ave/Mitchell Dr
80 (100) [90]
690 (620) [540]
80 (70) [50]
170 (210) [140] 10 (10) [10] 560 (560) [530] 110 (120) [70] 170 (130) [80]
40 (30) [30]
200 (160) [110]

18. Main St/Mitchell Dr/Pope St
Adams St
Library Ln
Hunt Ave
Railroad Ave Church St
Mitchell Dr
Oak Ave
Mitchell Dr Pope St
Main St
50 (70) [40]
900 (810) [760]
80 (70) [20]
70 (70) [30] 120 (60) [20] 830 (910) [800]

19. Main St/Grayson Avenue
100 (140) [40]
930 (850) [790]
20 (30) [10]
120 (140) [50] 40 (50) [20] 860 (930) [810]

20. Main St/Sulphur Springs Ave
110 (90) [40]
10 (10) [10]
20 (20) [10]
80 (100) [60]
30 (20) [10]
20 (10) [10]

21. Starr Ave/Hunt Ave
10 (30) [20]
220 (270) [200] 30 (20) [20] 100 (110) [40]
90 (80) [50]
410 (310) [230]

22. Starr Ave/Pope Street
120 (40) [30]
0 (0) [10]
50 (30) [10]
20 (40) [30]
190 (310) [150]
120 (40) [30] 20 (20) [20] 10 (0) [10] 10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [20]
340 (310) [240]
90 (20) [20]

23. Paseo Grand Dr/College Ave/Pope Street
Grayson Avenue
Main St
Hunt Ave
Starr Ave
Pope Street
Starr Ave
Pope Street
Paseo Grand Dr College Ave
Hunt Ave
Main St
Sulphur Springs Ave
Main St
Spring St
Valley View St
30 (30) [20]
560 (620) [520]
20 (30) [10]
20 (30) [30] 30 (30) [20] 630 (780) [540]

24. Silverado Trail/Pratt Ave
240 (140) [110]440 (510) [440]
40 (20) [40]
140 (130) [80]
10 (10) [10]
110 (210) [70] 220 (230) [160] 420 (570) [400] 10 (10) [10] 10 (10) [20]
10 (10) [10]
30 (50) [30]

25. Silverado Trail/Pope Street/Howell Mountain Rd
0 (10) [0]
970 (870) [770]
10 (0) [10]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [0]
0 (0) [10] 10 (20) [10] 950 (960) [810] 10 (10) [10]
10 (20) [10]
0 (10) [0]
0 (10) [0]

27. Main St/Mills Ln
Pratt Ave
Silverado Trail
Pope Street Howell Mountain Rd Silverado Trail
Mills Ln
Main St
20 (20) [20]
830 (750) [630]130 (120) [130]
10 (20) [20]
10 (10) [10]
10 (30) [40] 30 (10) [10] 890 (890) [730] 10 (30) [40]
10 (20) [30]
10 (0) [10]
70 (70) [60]

28. Main St/Charter Oak Ave
Charter Oak Ave
Main St
10 (10) [10]70 (90) [90]20 (30) [20]
10 (10) [0]
10 (10) [10]
10 (10) [0] 10 (10) [0] 130 (90) [70] 20 (10) [10]
20 (10) [10]
10 (10) [10]
30 (30) [20]

29. Oak Ave/Pine St
30 (20) [20]80 (90) [90]
80 (130) [80]
10 (10) [10]
70 (40) [30]
70 (40) [10] 30 (10) [10] 120 (110) [60] 30 (30) [10]
30 (20) [20]
50 (40) [30]
40 (60) [60]

30. Oak Ave/Adams St
20 (40) [30]
80 (110) [90]
20 (20) [20]
40 (70) [40]
70 (40) [40]
40 (60) [40] 30 (50) [20] 120 (100) [70] 50 (40) [30]
80 (50) [40]
70 (80) [40]
10 (20) [30]

31. Oak Ave/Spring St
140 (100) [80]
720 (650) [540]
40 (30) [30]
90 (70) [60] 40 (40) [40] 590 (620) [550]

32. Main St/Spring St
Pine St
Oak Ave
Spring St
Oak Ave
Spring St
Main St
Adams St
Oak Ave
10 (0) [10]
0 (0) [0]
10 (0) [0]
30 (50) [30]
160 (160) [120]
0 (0) [0] 70 (110) [70] 10 (0) [0] 30 (60) [30]
100 (70) [40]
390 (280) [240]
0 (0) [10]

33. Church St/Pope St
Pope St
Church St

STOP STOP STOP
POTS
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP

POTS POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
POTS
G
E
B
G
E
B
E
B
G
B
G
E
AE
D
AE
D
B
G
E
AE
D
AE
D
G
E
B
AE
D
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
AC
G
D
D
D
D
B
G
CF
AE
AE
BF
AC
G
E
AC
AF
E
G
E
B
B
G
E
BF
AE
D
AE
B
G
E
AE
BF
AE
D
D
D
AE
D
AE
D
AE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
G
E
D
D
D
D
F
Spring St Spring St
Spring Mountain RdSpring Mountain Rd
Meadowood Ln Meadowood Ln
Mund RdMund Rd
Pratt AvePratt Ave
Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave
Pope St Pope St
Grayson AveGrayson Ave
Chaix Ln Chaix Ln
White Ln White Ln
Dowdell Ln Dowdell L
M
n
ills Ln Mills Ln
Stice Ln Stice Ln
Fulton Ln Fulton Ln
Lewelling Ln Lewelling Ln
Crane Ave Crane Ave
Vallejo St Vallejo St
Mitchell DrMitchell Dr
Hunt Ave Hunt Ave
Conn Valley RdConn Valley Rd
Taplin RdTaplin Rd
St. Helena
Thoman
Barro
Zinfandel
Zinfandel Ln
29 128
Silverado Trl N
Elmhurst
Ave
Hillview Pl
Madrona Ave
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Charter Oak Ave
Spring St
Railroad Ave
Library Ln
Starr Ave
College Ave
Oak Ave
Hudson Ave
Valley View St
Deer Park Rd
Silverado Trl S
S Howell Mountain RdS Howell Mountain Rd
35 34
32 33
31 30
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18 17
16 15
14 13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4 36
0 1 2
Miles
Study Intersection
Oak Avenue Extension Scenario
Study Intersection (Grayson Ave Terminus)
Weekday AM (Weekday PM) [Weekend MD]
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
XX (YY) [ZZ]
Oak Avenue Extension Scenario
Study Intersection (Charter Oak Ave Terminus)
#
Signalized
Intersection
STOP Stop Sign
Adams Street Extension Scenario
Study Intersection
Pope Street Improvement Scenario
Study Intersection
34 25
35/36
36 Agenda Item #13.1.

Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis | 23 Adams Street Extension Alternative
The extension of Adams Street from its current eastern terminus at 899 Adams Street to Silverado Trail via a new bridge over the Napa River will provide a new east-west connection between Silverado Trail and Main Street. Because a portion of this new connection extends outside the City boundary, the extension of Adams Street will provide a new connection benefiting both the City and the County.

As such, the extension will result in a rerouting of traffic volumes from Main Street to Silverado Trail and Adams Street because it will provide a new, desirable route to bypass congestion on Main Street.

Additionally, it is also expected to reroute traffic volumes from Pope Street to Silverado Trail and Adams Street.

Intersection operations analysis results with Adams Street extension illustrate that the extension will provide congestion reductions along Main Street. Notably, at Main Street/Pope Street-Mitchell Drive, the LOS is improved from LOS F to LOS E for the weekday AM, weekday PM, and weekend MD peak hours; this indicates that (at the whole-intersection level), the intersection will operate at-capacity instead of over-capacity with the construction of the Adams Street extension. In addition, the following intersections are projected to improve from unacceptable operations without the Adams Street extension to acceptable operations with the extension for at least one peak hour:
• Main Street/Adams Street
• Main Street/Hunt Avenue
• Main Street/Grayson Avenue
The extension of Adams Street will introduce a new intersection at Silverado Trail/Adams Street. The new intersection is expected to operate at LOS B with traffic signal installation, and would operate similarly well if a roundabout is implemented in lieu of a traffic signal.

The rerouting of traffic volumes would increase traffic volume at additional locations, including segments along Silverado Trail between Pope Street and Adams Street, and Adams Street between Silverado Trail and Main Street. As such, traffic volume is expected to increase at intersection locations such as Main Street/Adams Street and Silverado Trail/Pope Street. However, the analysis indicates that these intersections are still expected to operate at a LOS similar to or better than the No Project scenario, with the exception of Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Road which worst approach delay would degrade from a high LOS C to a low LOS D for the weekday PM peak hour.

In addition to improving vehicular circulation, the extension is envisioned to include a shared-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists to support bicycle and pedestrian connectivity throughout the City.

Oak Avenue Extension Alternative
The extension of Oak Avenue – either between Mitchell Drive and Grayson Avenue or between Mitchell Drive and Charter Oak Avenue - will provide a new north-south connection within the City along with a new crossing of Sulphur Creek. The extension provides a new, desirable route to bypass the most congested stretch of Main Street and balance the existing high demand for Main Street. It will shift traffic volume traveling north and south along Main Street and the Valley View Street-Crane Avenue corridor to the new Oak Avenue extension.

Intersection operations analysis results with Oak Avenue extension alternative illustrate that the extension, with either southern terminus options, will generally provide improved operations along Agenda Item #13.1.

Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis | 24 Main Street. For example, at Main Street/Pope Street-Mitchell Drive, the LOS is improved from a high LOS F to a LOS E or low F for the weekday AM, weekday PM, and weekend MD peak hours.

This indicates that (at the whole-intersection level), the intersection will operate at-capacity instead of over-capacity with the construction of the Oak Avenue extension.

In addition, the following intersections are projected to improve from unacceptable operations without the Oak Avenue extension to acceptable operations with the extension for at least one peak hour:
• Main Street/Adams Street
• Main Street/Hunt Avenue
• Main Street/Grayson Avenue (Grayson Avenue terminus alternative only) While traffic volumes would increase at intersections along Oak Avenue, the affected intersections are generally expected to operate at LOS C or better. Specifically, key intersections along the extended segment of Oak Avenue, including Oak Avenue/Grayson Avenue and Oak Avenue/Charter Oak Avenue, are expected to operate at LOS C or better with side-street stop-controlled configurations. The intersections along the existing segment of Oak Avenue are expected to operate at LOS C or better with their existing stop control configurations (i.e. all-way stop-controlled and side-street stop-controlled).

Between the Oak Avenue extension (Grayson Avenue terminus) alternative and Oak Avenue extension (Charter Oak Avenue terminus) alternative, the Charter Oak Avenue terminus provides congestion reduction benefits in a similar manner to the Grayson Avenue terminus alternative.

However, compared to the Grayson Avenue terminus alternative, because the Charter Oak Avenue terminus will extend Oak Avenue over a shorter distance, drivers are expected to experience some delays south of Charter Oak Avenue along Main Street before turning on to Oak Street. Therefore, the congestion reduction benefits would be more modest. For example, at Main Street/Pope StreetMitchell Drive, while the delay is expected to improve substantially with the extension, the weekday AM peak hour is expected to operate at LOS F rather than LOS E; however, the average delay is slightly above the LOS E/F threshold of 80 seconds, indicating that the signal operates only slightly over-capacity. In addition, the Main Street/Charter Oak Avenue intersection meets traffic signal warrant requirements and is expected to operate at LOS C with installation of a traffic signal.

It is noted that the rerouting of traffic volumes would affect traffic movements at additional locations including segments along Main Street between the Oak extension southern terminus (Grayson Avenue or Charter Oak Avenue) and Sulphur Springs Avenue, as volumes are attracted from Sulphur Springs Avenue to take the new Oak Avenue extension. While delays are expected to fluctuate given the shifts in turning movements, affected intersections are expected to operate at a LOS level similar to No Project conditions.

While the traffic volumes would increase at locations along Oak Avenue, the overall volume along the corridor is expected to remain low to moderate. Wayfinding signages would be provided to improve driver awareness of the connection to key community destinations, and the corridor would incorporate traffic calming measures to manage operating speeds and support a livable, multimodal street environment.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Saint Helena Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives Analysis | 25 Pope Street Bridge Improvement Alternative
The Pope Street Bridge alternative includes the improvement of the Pope Street Bridge and the realignment of Pope Street to create a single intersection with Silverado Trail and Howell Mountain Road. Improving the Pope Street Bridge will enhance the driving experience as the widened Pope Street Bridge will be more comfortable to navigate. As such, it is expected to attract drivers traveling north and south along Main Street to use a combination of Silverado Trail and Pope Street. However, because these travelers would still need to navigate existing intersections that are congested north of Pope Street, the diversion potential is smaller than the Adams Street alternative and the Oak Avenue alternative.

Intersection operations analysis results with the Pope Street Bridge Improvement alternative indicate that the alternative will provide modest congestion reductions along Main Street. For example, the delays would decrease at Main Street/Pope Street-Mitchell Drive but the LOS would maintain a grade of LOS F for the weekday AM, weekday PM, and weekend MD peak hour; this indicates that, after construction of the Pope Street Bridge improvement, the Main Street corridor would continue to operate in an over-capacity condition. No intersections are projected to improve from unacceptable operations without the Pope Street Bridge improvement to acceptable operations with the improvement.

The Pope Street Bridge Improvement alternative includes realignment of Pope Street to meet Silverado Trail and Howell Mountain Road at a single intersection. This new intersection will need complementary improvements (e.g., traffic control configurations such as traffic signal or roundabout) to operate at LOS D or better.

While traffic volumes would increase at intersections along Pope Street, these intersections are generally expected to continue to operate at a LOS level similar to No Project conditions. However, intersections such as Pope Street/Starr Avenue will need complementary improvements (e.g., traffic control configurations such as all-way stop-controlled) to operate at LOS C or better.

In addition to improving traffic operations, the Pope Street Bridge Improvement alternative would improve walking and biking infrastructure, supporting an enhanced multimodal transportation network.

A summary table presenting the delays and LOS for all study intersections is provided in Appendix A for reference.

Agenda Item #13.1.

X
Appendix A. Intersection Delay and LOS Table A: Intersection Delay and LOS Int.

ID Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Control
Peak Hour
Existing Conditions Cumulative Conditions
No Project No Project Adams Street Extension
Oak Avenue Extension
Pope Street Bridge
Grayson Avenue Improvement
terminus
Charter Oak
Avenue terminus
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS 4 Madrona Avenue/Hudson Avenue
SSSC
Weekday AM 4.4 (9.0) A (A) 5.6 (9.5) A (A) 5.6 (9.5) A (A) 5.2 (9.4) A (A) 5.3 (9.4) A (A) 5.6 (9.5) A (A) Weekday PM 2.7 (8.7) A (A) 5.8 (9.1) A (A) 5.8 (9.1) A (A) 5.1 (9.0) A (A) 5.4 (9.0) A (A) 5.8 (9.1) A (A) Weekend MD 3.2 (8.6) A (A) 3.3 (9.0) A (A) 3.3 (9.0) A (A) 2.8 (9.0) A (A) 2.8 (9.0) A (A) 3.3 (9.0) A (A) 5 Spring Street/Valley View Street
SSSC
Weekday AM 8.3 (12.1) A (B) 10.9 (18.2) B (C) 10.9 (18.2) B (C) 10.4 (17.0) B (C) 10.4 (17.2) B (C) 10.9 (18.2) B (C) Weekday PM 5.2 (9.3) A (A) 7.7 (12.0) A (B) 7.7 (12.0) A (B) 7.3 (11.6) A (B) 7.4 (11.7) A (B) 7.7 (12.0) A (B) Weekend MD 5.2 (9.4) A (A) 5.4 (10.0) A (B) 5.4 (10.0) A (B) 5.2 (9.9) A (A) 5.2 (9.9) A (A) 5.4 (10.0) A (B) 6 Grayson Road/Crane Avenue
AWSC
Weekday AM 10.2 B 15.1 C 15.1 C 14.2 (17.5) B (C) 14.4 B 15.1 C Weekday PM 7.8 A 9.4 A 9.4 A 9.0 (9.5) A (A) 9.2 A 9.4 A Weekend MD 7.6 A 8.1 A 8.1 A 8.0 (8.1) A (A) 8.0 A 8.1 A 7 Sulphur Springs Avenue/Crane Avenue
SSSC
Weekday AM 3.3 (9.7) A (A) 5.0 (10.8) A (B) 5.0 (10.8) A (B) 4.7 (10.6) A (B) 4.8 (10.6) A (B) 5.0 (10.8) A (B) Weekday PM 4.8 (9.1) A (A) 5.1 (12.0) A (B) 5.1 (12.0) A (B) 4.8 (11.5) A (B) 4.9 (11.7) A (B) 5.1 (12.0) A (B) Weekend MD 4.8 (9.1) A (A) 5.2 (9.6) A (A) 5.2 (9.6) A (A) 5.1 (9.5) A (A) 5.1 (9.5) A (A) 5.2 (9.6) A (A) Agenda Item #13.1.

X
Int.

ID Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Control
Peak Hour
Existing Conditions Cumulative Conditions
No Project No Project Adams Street Extension
Oak Avenue Extension
Pope Street Bridge
Grayson Avenue Improvement
terminus
Charter Oak
Avenue terminus
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS 8 Main Street/Pratt Avenue SSSC
Weekday AM 1.7 (41.7) A (E) 4.4 (103.3) A (F) 4.4 (103.3) A (F) 4.4 (103.3) A (F) 4.4 (103.3) A (F) 4.4 (103.3) A (F) Weekday PM 1.7 (44.1) A (E) 50.4 (>120) F (F) 50.4 (>120) F (F) 50.4 (>120) F (F) 50.4 (188.2) F (F) 50.4 (>120) F (F) Weekend MD 1.2 (31.0) A (D) 2.6 (44.6) A (E) 2.6 (44.6) A (E) 2.6 (44.6) A (E) 2.6 (44.6) A (E) 2.6 (44.6) A (E) 9 Main Street/Elmhurst Avenue
SSSC
Weekday AM 2.1 (32.6) A (D) 2.5 (65.5) A (F) 2.5 (65.5) A (F) 2.5 (65.5) A (F) 2.5 (65.5) A (F) 2.5 (65.5) A (F) Weekday PM 1.5 (35.2) A (E) 19.7 (>120) C (F) 19.7 (>120) C (F) 19.7 (>120) C (F) 19.7 (>120) C (F) 19.7 (>120) C (F) Weekend MD 1.2 (24.6) A (C) 1.7 (31.0) A (D) 1.7 (31.0) A (D) 1.7 (31.0) A (D) 1.7 (31.0) A (D) 1.7 (31.0) A (D) 10 Main Street/Madrona Avenue-Fulton Lane
Signal
Weekday AM 18.0 B 49.0 D 49.0 D 54.0 D 57.1 E 49.0 D
Weekday PM 14.4 B 25.3 C 25.3 C 34.8 C 34.5 C 25.3 C
Weekend MD 33.5 C 33.6 C 25.4 C 27.5 C 27.5 C 33.6 C
11 Fulton Lane/Railroad Avenue
SSSC
Weekday AM 4.8 (10.3) A (B) 4.8 (11.4) A (B) 4.8 (11.4) A (B) 4.8 (11.4) A (B) 4.8 (11.4) A (B) 4.8 (11.4) A (B) Weekday PM 6.7 (10.4) A (B) 6.4 (11.2) A (B) 6.4 (11.2) A (B) 6.4 (11.2) A (B) 6.4 (11.2) A (B) 6.4 (11.2) A (B) Weekend MD 5.8 (9.5) A (A) 5.7 (9.8) A (A) 5.7 (9.8) A (A) 5.7 (9.8) A (A) 5.7 (9.8) A (A) 5.7 (9.8) A (A) 12 Main Street/Adams Street
Signal
Weekday AM 22.5 C 35.2 D 38.1 D 35.3 D 35.8 D 35.2 D
Weekday PM 23.6 C 34.3 C 44.1 D 37.2 D 37.7 D 34.3 C
Weekend MD 41.9 D 59.2 E 41.1 D 37.6 D 37.6 D 59.2 E
Agenda Item #13.1.

X
Int.

ID Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Control
Peak Hour
Existing Conditions Cumulative Conditions
No Project No Project Adams Street Extension
Oak Avenue Extension
Pope Street Bridge
Grayson Avenue Improvement
terminus
Charter Oak
Avenue terminus
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS 13 Adams Street/Railroad Avenue
AWSC
Weekday AM 9.2 (9.8) A (A) 11.4 B 17.6 C 11.4 B 11.4 B 11.4 B Weekday PM 9.4 (9.6) A (A) 12.8 B 20.2 C 12.8 B 12.8 B 12.8 B Weekend MD 7.9 (8.2) A (A) 8.1 A 9.6 A 8.1 A 8.1 A 8.1 A 14 Adams Street/Library Lane
SSSC
Weekday AM 2.0 (9.4) A (A) 2.2 (10.9) A (B) 1.2 (15.0) A (C) 2.2 (10.9) A (B) 2.2 (10.9) A (B) 2.2 (10.9) A (B) Weekday PM 4.0 (9.7) A (A) 5.3 (11.4) A (B) 3.8 (14.2) A (B) 5.3 (11.4) A (B) 5.3 (11.4) A (B) 5.3 (11.4) A (B) Weekend MD 5.3 (9.2) A (A) 5.1 (9.4) A (A) 1.5 (12.3) A (B) 5.1 (9.4) A (A) 5.1 (9.4) A (A) 5.1 (9.4) A (A) 15 Main Street/Hunt Avenue SSSC
Weekday AM 0.7 (16.3) A (C) 1.0 (20.3) A (C) 1.0 (16.9) A (C) 1.0 (17.9) A (C) 1.0 (17.9) A (C) 1.0 (20.3) A (C) Weekday PM 1.0 (17.0) A (C) 1.9 (25.9) A (D) 1.8 (21.4) A (C) 1.9 (22.8) A (C) 1.9 (22.9) A (C) 1.9 (25.9) A (D) Weekend MD 0.9 (23.9) A (C) 1.2 (26.5) A (D) 1.3 (22.6) A (C) 1.2 (24.1) A (C) 1.2 (24.1) A (C) 1.2 (26.5) A (D) 16 Hunt Avenue/Railroad Avenue
SSSC
Weekday AM 8.4 (16.7) A (C) 6.7 (18.3) A (C) 6.7 (18.3) A (C) 6.7 (18.3) A (C) 6.7 (18.3) A (C) 6.7 (18.3) A (C) Weekday PM 8.7 (15.5) A (C) 7.6 (16.7) A (C) 7.6 (16.7) A (C) 7.6 (16.7) A (C) 7.6 (16.7) A (C) 7.6 (16.7) A (C) Weekend MD 6.7 (12.3) A (B) 7.2 (13.5) A (B) 7.2 (13.5) A (B) 7.2 (13.5) A (B) 7.2 (13.5) A (B) 7.2 (13.5) A (B) 17 Mitchell Drive/Oak Avenue SSSC
Weekday AM 5.7 (9.8) A (A) 5.6 (10.3) A (B) 5.6 (10.3) A (B) 11.1 (17.3) B (C) 9.5 (14.0) A (B) 5.6 (10.3) A (B) Weekday PM 5.0 (9.7) A (A) 5.7 (10.5) A (B) 5.7 (10.5) A (B) 10.2 (16.2) B (C) 9.5 (15.1) A (C) 5.7 (10.5) A (B) Weekend MD 5.0 (9.3) A (A) 5.1 (9.6) A (A) 5.1 (9.6) A (A) 8.0 (12.4) A (B) 8.2 (12.7) A (B) 5.1 (9.6) A (A) Agenda Item #13.1.

X
Int.

ID Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Control
Peak Hour
Existing Conditions Cumulative Conditions
No Project No Project Adams Street Extension
Oak Avenue Extension
Pope Street Bridge
Grayson Avenue Improvement
terminus
Charter Oak
Avenue terminus
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS 18 Main Street/Pope Street-Mitchell Drive
Signal
Weekday AM 115.6 F >120 F 71.7 E 63.5 E 81.3 F >120 F
Weekday PM 97.8 F >120 F 75.6 E 68.9 E 78.7 E >120 F
Weekend MD 100.5 F 109.3 F 66.1 E 63.6 E 68.9 E 93.4 F
19 Main Street/Grayson Avenue
Signal
Weekday AM 37.6 D 68.5 E 48.9 D 38.6 D 71.9 E 65.0 E
Weekday PM 19.6 B 52.9 D 42.4 D 43.0 D 55.6 E 50.8 D
Weekend MD 23.4 C 28.7 C 19.8 B 24.3 C 29.3 C 25.5 C
20 Main Street/Sulphur Springs Avenue
SSSC
Weekday AM 1.2 (16.3) A (C) 2.1 (23.5) A (C) 2.1 (20.7) A (C) 1.8 (23.0) A (C) 1.9 (23.1) A (C) 2.1 (23.1) A (C) Weekday PM 1.0 (16.4) A (C) 3.4 (33.2) A (D) 3.2 (29.1) A (D) 2.8 (31.3) A (D) 3.0 (31.9) A (D) 3.4 (32.5) A (D) Weekend MD 0.7 (16.0) A (C) 0.8 (17.7) A (C) 0.9 (16.0) A (C) 0.8 (17.7) A (C) 0.8 (17.7) A (C) 0.8 (17.5) A (C) 21 Hunt Avenue/Starr Avenue AWSC
Weekday AM 7.3 A 7.9 A 7.9 A 7.9 A 7.9 A 7.9 A
Weekday PM 7.1 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A
Weekend MD 7.1 A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 A
22 Pope Street/Starr Avenue SSSC
Weekday AM 2.1 (14.9) A (B) 3.8 (23.3) A (C) 3.5 (20.0) A (C) 3.8 (23.3) A (C) 3.8 (23.3) A (C) 3.9 (25.0) A (D) Weekday PM 2.3 (12.2) A (B) 3.5 (19.9) A (C) 3.5 (17.6) A (C) 3.5 (19.9) A (C) 3.5 (19.9) A (C) 3.6 (20.6) A (C) Weekend MD 1.3 (10.8) A (B) 1.6 (11.9) A (B) 1.7 (11.4) A (B) 1.6 (11.9) A (B) 1.6 (11.9) A (B) 1.6 (12.1) A (B) Agenda Item #13.1.

X
Int.

ID Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Control
Peak Hour
Existing Conditions Cumulative Conditions
No Project No Project Adams Street Extension
Oak Avenue Extension
Pope Street Bridge
Grayson Avenue Improvement
terminus
Charter Oak
Avenue terminus
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS 23 Pope Street/Paseo Grande DriveCollege Avenue SSSC
Weekday AM 7.0 (23.4) A (C) 15.9 (78.6) C (F) 12.1 (52.8) B (F) 15.9 (78.6) C (F) 15.9 (78.6) C (F) 18.1 (94.0) C (F) Weekday PM 2.6 (12.6) A (B) 2.7 (17.9) A (C) 2.7 (16.2) A (C) 2.7 (17.9) A (C) 2.7 (17.9) A (C) 2.7 (18.4) A (C) Weekend MD 2.1 (11.4) A (B) 2.8 (13.8) A (B) 3.0 (13.1) A (B) 2.8 (13.8) A (B) 2.8 (13.8) A (B) 2.8 (14.2) A (B) 24 Silverado Trail/Pratt Avenue SSSC
Weekday AM 0.5 (12.7) A (B) 0.9 (23.4) A (C) 0.9 (23.4) A (C) 0.9 (23.4) A (C) 0.9 (23.4) A (C) 0.9 (23.4) A (C) Weekday PM 0.6 (13.9) A (B) 2.0 (45.7) A (E) 2.0 (45.7) A (E) 2.0 (45.7) A (E) 2.0 (45.7) A (E) 2.0 (45.7) A (E) Weekend MD 0.5 (12.3) A (B) 0.8 (17.0) A (C) 0.8 (17.0) A (C) 0.8 (17.0) A (C) 0.8 (17.0) A (C) 0.8 (17.0) A (C) 25 Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Road
SSSC*
Weekday AM 0.5 (14.0) A (B) 0.6 (16.9) A (C) 0.6 (18.9) A (C) 0.6 (16.9) A (C) 0.6 (16.9) A (C) 38.2 D Weekday PM 0.5 (13.8) A (B) 1.0 (24.6) A (C) 1.0 (26.1) A (D) 1.0 (24.6) A (C) 1.0 (24.6) A (C) 53.4 D Weekend MD 0.5 (13.3) A (B) 0.8 (16.1) A (C) 0.7 (17.9) A (C) 0.8 (16.1) A (C) 0.8 (16.1) A (C) 23.4 C 26 Silverado Trail/Pope Street SSSC*
Weekday AM 3.7 (18.8) A (C) 9.6 (54.8) A (F) 9.3 (66.7) A (F) 9.6 (54.8) A (F) 9.6 (54.8) A (F) - - Weekday PM 3.3 (19.4) A (C) 25.6 (>120) D (F) 24.3 (>120) C (F) 25.6 (>120) D (F) 25.6 (138.4) D (F) - - Weekend MD 2.1 (14.3) A (B) 2.9 (20.2) A (C) 2.4 (23.4) A (C) 2.9 (20.2) A (C) 2.9 (20.2) A (C) - - 27 Main Street/Mills Lane SSSC
Weekday AM 0.1 (21.1) A (C) 0.2 (19.4) A (C) 0.2 (17.4) A (C) 0.2 (16.6) A (C) 0.2 (19.6) A (C) 0.2 (19.0) A (C) Weekday PM 0.1 (14.7) A (B) 2.1 (95.5) A (F) 1.6 (68.8) A (F) 1.5 (57.7) A (F) 2.2 (103) A (F) 2.0 (90.6) A (F) Weekend MD 0.1 (14.1) A (B) 0.2 (15.2) A (C) 0.2 (14.0) A (B) 0.2 (14.1) A (B) 0.2 (15.3) A (C) 0.2 (15.1) A (C) Agenda Item #13.1.

X
Int.

ID Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Control
Peak Hour
Existing Conditions Cumulative Conditions
No Project No Project Adams Street Extension
Oak Avenue Extension
Pope Street Bridge
Grayson Avenue Improvement
terminus
Charter Oak
Avenue terminus
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS 28 Main Street/Charter Oak Avenue
SSSC**
Weekday AM 5.3 (>120) A (F) 36.4 (111.6) E (F) 22.7 (71.0) C (F) 16.7 (56.3) C (F) 31.1 C 33.7 (103.0) D (F) Weekday PM 6.9 (119.2) A (F) 48.4 (>120) E (F) 33.8 (99.1) D (F) 27.0 (78.2) C (F) 29.8 C 45.8 (>120) E (F) Weekend MD 5.3 (89.3) A (F) 19.0 (>120) C (F) 10.7 (>120) B (F) 11.3 (>120) B (F) 27.6 C 17.8 (>120) C (F)
29 Oak Avenue/Pine Street AWSC
Weekday AM 8.1 A 9.0 A 9.0 A 12.4 B 12.1 B 9.0 A
Weekday PM 7.5 A 8.0 A 8.0 A 9.2 A 9.0 A 8.0 A
Weekend MD 7.4 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 8.4 A 8.4 A 7.7 A
30 Oak Avenue/Adams Street
AWSC
Weekday AM 9.6 A 11.7 B 11.7 B 20.9 C 20 C 11.7 B
Weekday PM 8.3 A 9.3 A 9.3 A 11.3 B 10.9 B 9.3 A
Weekend MD 7.9 A 8.8 A 8.8 A 10 A 10 A 8.8 A
31 Oak Avenue/Spring Street
AWSC
Weekday AM 9.5 A 11.2 B 11.2 B 24.1 C 17.4 C 11.2 B
Weekday PM 8.7 A 9.9 A 9.9 A 13.1 B 11.8 B 9.9 A
Weekend MD 8.1 A 9.0 A 9.0 A 10.6 B 10.3 B 9.0 A
32 Main Street/Spring Street
SSSC
Weekday AM 2.0 (16.7) A (C) 2.8 (24.6) A (C) 2.8 (19.6) A (C) 5.2 (32.0) A (D) 2.8 (20.4) A (C) 2.8 (24.6) A (C) Weekday PM 1.7 (17.6) A (C) 2.3 (25.0) A (D) 2.3 (21.0) A (C) 3.7 (29.2) A (D) 2.3 (22.1) A (C) 2.3 (25.0) A (D) Weekend MD 1.9 (27.5) A (D) 3.3 (37.0) A (E) 3.3 (29.3) A (D) 3.7 (33.8) A (D) 3.2 (31.7) A (D) 3.3 (37.0) A (E) Agenda Item #13.1.

X
Int.

ID Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Control
Peak Hour
Existing Conditions Cumulative Conditions
No Project No Project Adams Street Extension
Oak Avenue Extension
Pope Street Bridge
Grayson Avenue Improvement
terminus
Charter Oak
Avenue terminus
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS 33 Pope Street/Church Street
SSSC
Weekday AM 1.9 (12.1) A (B) 2.9 (15.5) A (C) 2.9 (14.3) A (B) 2.9 (15.5) A (C) 2.9 (15.5) A (C) 2.8 (16.1) A (C) Weekday PM 3.3 (12.1) A (B) 4.3 (15.4) A (C) 4.4 (14.2) A (B) 4.3 (15.4) A (C) 4.3 (15.4) A (C) 4.3 (15.8) A (C) Weekend MD 2.4 (11.4) A (B) 3.1 (13.8) A (B) 3.3 (13.0) A (B) 3.1 (13.8) A (B) 3.1 (13.8) A (B) 3.1 (14.1) A (B) 34 Silverado Trail/Adams Street
Signal
Weekday AM
Intersection Does Not
Exist in this Scenario
Intersection Does Not
Exist in this Scenario

18.1 B
Intersection Does
Not Exist in this
Scenario
Intersection Does
Not Exist in this
Scenario
Intersection Does
Not Exist in this
Scenario
Weekday PM 17.9 B
Weekend MD 14.6 B
35 Oak Avenue/ Grayson Avenue SSSC
Weekday AM
Intersection Does Not
Exist in this Scenario
Intersection Does Not
Exist in this Scenario
Intersection Does
Not Exist in this
Scenario

4.9 (13.2)
A
(B)
Intersection Does
Not Exist in this
Scenario
Intersection Does
Not Exist in this
Scenario
Weekday PM 3.8 (11.7) A (B)
Weekend MD 3.7 (9.9) A (A)
36 Oak Avenue/Charter Oak Avenue
SSSC
Weekday AM
Intersection Does Not
Exist in this Scenario
Intersection Does Not
Exist in this Scenario
Intersection Does
Not Exist in this
Scenario

3.7 (12.7)
A
(B)

4.0 (10.2)
A
(B)
Intersection Does
Not Exist in this
Scenario
Weekday PM 4.0 (12.0) A (B) 3.6 (9.9) A (A)
Weekend MD 5.1 (11.3) A (B) 3.5 (10.0) A (A)
Notes: * Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Road-Pope Street has been modeled as one signalized intersection under Pope Street Bridge Improvement Alternative Scenario as an operational improvement. The County may also consider converting this intersection to a roundabout as described in the Napa County General Plan. ** Main Street/Charter Oak Avenue has been modeled as one signalized intersection under the Oak Avenue Extension (Charter Oak Avenue terminus) Alternative Scenario as an operational improvement. 1. Delay for signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections presented as whole-intersection average delay. Delay for side-street stop-controlled intersections presented as whole-intersection average delay (delay on worst movement or single-lane approach).

2. LOS per Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition

3. Bold indicates unacceptable operations.

4. AWSC = All-Way Stop-Controlled, SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Controlled.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

Agenda Item #13.1.

X
Appendix B. Traffic Counts
Agenda Item #13.1.

Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 25-080213-001 Day:

City: St Helena Date:

AM 0 30 43 1 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 18 12 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 1 0 0 0 13 0 18
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6
0 0 0 0 TEV 125 0 89 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 PHF 0.76 0.82
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 0 33 9 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 0 24 3 AM
0 NONE
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM 46
Madrona Ave & Hudson Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Madrona Ave Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 5/27/2025 PEAK HOURS 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 43 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM COUNT PERIODS NONE 21 0 46
Cars (AM) 22 HT (AM) Hudson Ave EASTBOUNDWESTBOUND Hudson Ave 0 0 0

CONTROL
1-Way Stop(WB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Cars (PM) HT (PM)
0 36

NORTHBOUND
Madrona Ave
Cars (NOON) HT (NOON)

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM

NOON PMNOON AMAMNOON PM PMNOON AMAMNOON PM
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 100 0
0 0
4 0
0 5
00 000 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
041
011
13 0
0 4
0 0
01812
0339
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
18 0
0 6
0 0
02642
0232
Agenda Item #13.1.