Cities Index.
Agenda, regular meeting

St. Helena City Council
March 24, 2026

Document
Agenda, regular meeting
Meeting
March 24, 2026
Body
St. Helena City Council
Pages
1,259
Original file
181.2 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on sthelenaca.api.civicclerk.com. That file is the official record.

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
26: Silverado Trail & Pope Street Cumulative Plus Project Weekday PM Oak Charter Oak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 25.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 130 200 130 530 620 230
Future Vol, veh/h 130 200 130 530 620 230
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - 225
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 146 225 146 596 697 258
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1584 697 955 0 - 0
Stage 1 697 - - - - -
Stage 2 888 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 119 440 716 - - -
Stage 1 492 - - - - -
Stage 2 401 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 94 440 716 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 224 - - - - -
Stage 1 392 - - - - -
Stage 2 401 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 138.36 2.23 0

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 716 - 319 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.204 - 1.164 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 11.3 - 138.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - 15.5 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s
+: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1079 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
27: Main St & Mills Ln Cumulative Plus Project Weekday PM Oak Charter Oak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 10 10 20 10 894 0 10 984 20
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 10 10 20 10 894 0 10 984 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - 150 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 11 11 22 11 961 0 11 1058 22
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2083 2078 1074 2062 2089 961 1085 0 0 961 0 0 Stage 1 1095 1095 - 983 983 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 988 983 - 1080 1106 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.227 - - 2.227 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 39 53 266 40 52 309 639 - - 712 - -
Stage 1 258 288 - 298 326 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 296 326 - 263 285 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 27 50 265 38 49 309 636 - - 712 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 27 50 - 38 49 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 253 283 - 287 314 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 256 314 - 259 279 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 103 0.12 0.1

HCM LOS A F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 20 - - - 75 712 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - - 0.57 0.015 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 10.8 0 - 0 103 10.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A - A F B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 2.5 0 - -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1080 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Saint Helena Streets Master Plan 28: Main St & Charter Oak Ave Cumulative Plus Project Weekday PM Oak Charter Oak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 10 110 70 0 20 100 694 120 30 834 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 20 10 110 70 0 20 100 694 120 30 834 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1484 1484 1484 1484 1484 1484 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 22 11 13 76 0 0 109 754 126 33 907 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 54 27 32 144 0 0 137 899 150 55 980 12
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.58 0.58 0.03 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 661 330 390 1414 0 0 1767 1542 258 1767 1829 22 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 0 0 76 0 0 109 0 880 33 0 918
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1381 0 0 1414 0 0 1767 0 1800 1767 0 1851 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 37.1 1.7 0.0 42.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 37.1 1.7 0.0 42.4 Prop In Lane 0.48 0.28 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.01
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 114 0 0 144 0 0 137 0 1049 55 0 992 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.84 0.61 0.00 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 269 0 0 275 0 0 158 0 1161 97 0 1130 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.5 0.0 0.0 39.6 0.0 0.0 42.1 0.0 15.8 44.5 0.0 19.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 5.2 10.3 0.0 11.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 15.5 0.9 0.0 19.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 42.8 0.0 0.0 42.6 0.0 0.0 63.6 0.0 21.0 54.8 0.0 31.6 LnGrp LOS D D E C D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 46 76 989 951
Approach Delay, s/veh 42.8 42.6 25.7 32.4
Approach LOS D D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 58.8 12.3 11.9 54.5 14.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.1 59.9 18.1 8.3 56.7 18.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 39.1 4.9 7.6 44.4 6.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.5 0.1 0.0 5.4 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 29.8
HCM 7th LOS C
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1081 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th AWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
29: Oak Ave & Pine St Cumulative Plus Project Weekday PM Oak Charter Oak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 10 10 30 10 10 10 170 30 10 170 10 Future Vol, veh/h 10 10 10 30 10 10 10 170 30 10 170 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 12 12 12 35 12 12 12 200 35 12 200 12
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh8.2 8.5 9.2 9.1

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 5% 33% 60% 5%
Vol Thru, % 81% 33% 20% 89%
Vol Right, % 14% 33% 20% 5%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 210 30 50 190
LT Vol 10 10 30 10
Through Vol 170 10 10 170
RT Vol 30 10 10 10
Lane Flow Rate 247 35 59 224
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.299 0.048 0.082 0.275
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.352 4.941 5.039 4.428
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 828 724 710 811
Service Time 2.372 2.98 3.076 2.449
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.298 0.048 0.083 0.276
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9.2 8.2 8.5 9.1
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 0.2 0.3 1.1
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1082 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th AWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
30: Oak Ave & Adams St Cumulative Plus Project Weekday PM Oak Charter Oak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh10.9
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 40 40 60 40 20 20 170 130 30 190 10 Future Vol, veh/h 10 40 40 60 40 20 20 170 130 30 190 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 44 44 66 44 22 22 187 143 33 209 11
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh9.4 10.1 11.6 10.9

HCM LOS A B B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 6% 11% 50% 13%
Vol Thru, % 53% 44% 33% 83%
Vol Right, % 41% 44% 17% 4%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 320 90 120 230
LT Vol 20 10 60 30
Through Vol 170 40 40 190
RT Vol 130 40 20 10
Lane Flow Rate 352 99 132 253
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.454 0.149 0.206 0.357
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.756 5.436 5.611 5.088
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 763 661 641 710
Service Time 2.756 3.458 3.629 3.088
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.461 0.15 0.206 0.356
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 11.6 9.4 10.1 10.9
HCM Lane LOS B A B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.4 0.5 0.8 1.6
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1083 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th AWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
31: Oak Ave & Spring St Cumulative Plus Project Weekday PM Oak Charter Oak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh11.8
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 70 40 60 20 80 50 40 190 20 40 180 50 Future Vol, veh/h 70 40 60 20 80 50 40 190 20 40 180 50 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 77 44 66 22 88 55 44 209 22 44 198 55
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh11.1 10.7 12.3 12.5

HCM LOS B B B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 16% 41% 13% 15%
Vol Thru, % 76% 24% 53% 67%
Vol Right, % 8% 35% 33% 19%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 250 170 150 270
LT Vol 40 70 20 40
Through Vol 190 40 80 180
RT Vol 20 60 50 50
Lane Flow Rate 275 187 165 297
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.414 0.294 0.259 0.439
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.42 5.666 5.667 5.327
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 662 631 631 674
Service Time 3.47 3.724 3.727 3.375
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.415 0.296 0.261 0.441
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 12.3 11.1 10.7 12.5
HCM Lane LOS B B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 2 1.2 1 2.2
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1084 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
32: Main St & Spring St Cumulative Plus Project Weekday PM Oak Charter Oak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 70 100 584 554 40
Future Vol, veh/h 30 70 100 584 554 40
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 59 47 0 0 47
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 32 75 108 628 596 43
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1507 723 686 0 - 0
Stage 1 664 - - - - -
Stage 2 843 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 132 424 903 - - -
Stage 1 510 - - - - -
Stage 2 420 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 98 383 863 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 226 - - - - -
Stage 1 394 - - - - -
Stage 2 402 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 22.09 1.43 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 263 - 317 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.125 - 0.339 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9.8 0 22.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 1.5 - -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1085 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
33: Pope St & Church St Cumulative Plus Project Weekday PM Oak Charter Oak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 150 0 0 270 70 0 0 0 60 0 110
Future Vol, veh/h 50 150 0 0 270 70 0 0 0 60 0 110
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 15 0 6 6 0 15 1 0 1 1 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 54 163 0 0 293 76 0 0 0 65 0 120
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 385 0 0 169 0 0 572 662 170 619 624 348 Stage 1 - - - - - - 278 278 - 347 347 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 294 385 - 273 278 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1168 - - 1402 - - 429 381 871 399 400 693 Stage 1 - - - - - - 727 679 - 667 633 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 712 609 - 731 679 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1152 - - 1394 - - 334 354 865 373 372 683 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 334 354 - 373 372 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 685 640 - 658 624 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 586 601 - 692 640 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 2.07 0 0 15.45

HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 450 - - 1394 - - 528
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.047 - - - - - 0.35
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 8.3 0 - 0 - - 15.4
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - - 0 - - 1.6
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1086 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
36: Charter Oak Ave & Oak Ave Cumulative Plus Project Weekday PM Oak Charter Oak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 60 30 80 80 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 60 30 80 80 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 65 33 87 87 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 120 0 - 0 163 76
Stage 1 - - - - 76 -
Stage 2 - - - - 87 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1462 - - - 825 982
Stage 1 - - - - 944 -
Stage 2 - - - - 934 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1462 - - - 819 982
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 819 -
Stage 1 - - - - 937 -
Stage 2 - - - - 934 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.07 0 9.89

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 257 - - - 834
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.117
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - - 9.9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1087 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th AWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
37: Oak Ave & Madrona Ave Cumulative Plus Project Weekday PM Oak Charter Oak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 134 50 90 84 10 35 5 100 10 10 0
Future Vol, veh/h 10 134 50 90 84 10 35 5 100 10 10 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 146 54 98 91 11 38 5 109 11 11 0
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9 9.3 8.7 8.4

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 25% 5% 49% 50%
Vol Thru, % 4% 69% 46% 50%
Vol Right, % 71% 26% 5% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 140 194 184 20
LT Vol 35 10 90 10
Through Vol 5 134 84 10
RT Vol 100 50 10 0
Lane Flow Rate 152 211 200 22
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.192 0.26 0.259 0.031
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.537 4.445 4.657 5.189
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 790 806 770 687
Service Time 2.575 2.481 2.693 3.239
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.192 0.262 0.26 0.032
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.7 9 9.3 8.4
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.7 1 1 0.1
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1088 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1089 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
1: Spring Mountain Rd & Elmhurst Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 10 90 10 70 0 70 20 30 100 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 10 90 10 70 0 70 20 30 100 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 0 0 14 127 14 99 0 99 28 42 141 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 331 352 141 338 338 113 141 0 0 127 0 0 Stage 1 225 225 - 113 113 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 106 127 - 225 225 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.227 - - 2.227 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 620 571 904 614 582 938 1436 - - 1453 - - Stage 1 775 715 - 890 800 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 898 789 - 775 715 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 525 553 904 585 563 938 1436 - - 1453 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 525 553 - 585 563 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 751 693 - 890 800 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 789 789 - 739 693 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.04 12.96 0 1.74

HCM LOS A B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1436 - - 904 690 415 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.016 0.347 0.029 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - 9 13 7.6 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A B A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 1.5 0.1 - -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1090 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
2: Hillview Pl & Spring Mountain Rd Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 160 10 0 70 20 10 10 10 20 10 10
Future Vol, veh/h 30 160 10 0 70 20 10 10 10 20 10 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 42 222 14 0 97 28 14 14 14 28 14 14
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 125 0 0 236 0 0 417 438 229 424 431 111 Stage 1 - - - - - - 313 313 - 111 111 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 104 125 - 313 319 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1455 - - 1325 - - 545 511 808 539 516 939 Stage 1 - - - - - - 696 655 - 892 802 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 899 791 - 696 651 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1455 - - 1325 - - 505 494 808 498 499 939 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 505 494 - 498 499 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 673 634 - 892 802 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 871 791 - 647 629 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.13 0 11.78 12.07

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 572 267 - - 1325 - - 565
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.073 0.029 - - - - - 0.098
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 11.8 7.5 0 - 0 - - 12.1
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.3
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1091 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
3: Madrona Ave & Spring Mountain Rd Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 80 80 43 86 94
Future Vol, veh/h 57 80 80 43 86 94
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 69 69 69 69 69 69
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 83 116 116 62 125 136
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 178 0 - 0 428 147
Stage 1 - - - - 147 -
Stage 2 - - - - 281 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1392 - - - 582 897
Stage 1 - - - - 878 -
Stage 2 - - - - 764 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1392 - - - 545 897
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 545 -
Stage 1 - - - - 822 -
Stage 2 - - - - 764 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 3.22 0 13.45

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 749 - - - 685
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 - - - 0.381
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.8 0 - - 13.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 1.8
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1092 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
4: Hudson Ave & Madrona Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 10 14 20 10 7
Future Vol, veh/h 30 10 14 20 10 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 3 3 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 37 12 17 25 12 9
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 52 0 105 46
Stage 1 - - - - 46 -
Stage 2 - - - - 59 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1547 - 890 1020
Stage 1 - - - - 974 -
Stage 2 - - - - 961 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1543 - 877 1017
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 877 -
Stage 1 - - - - 971 -
Stage 2 - - - - 950 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 3.03 8.96

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 930 - - 741 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 - - 0.011 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9 - - 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1093 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
5: Valley View St & Spring St Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 40 34 40 30 87
Future Vol, veh/h 40 40 34 40 30 87
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 71 71 71 71 71 71
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 56 56 48 56 42 123
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 113 0 237 85
Stage 1 - - - - 85 -
Stage 2 - - - - 152 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1471 - 749 972
Stage 1 - - - - 936 -
Stage 2 - - - - 873 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1471 - 724 972
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 724 -
Stage 1 - - - - 936 -
Stage 2 - - - - 844 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 3.46 9.94

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 893 - - 827 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.184 - - 0.033 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9.9 - - 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.1 -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1094 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th AWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
6: Crane Ave/Valley View St & Grayson Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 30 87 30 20 64
Future Vol, veh/h 20 30 87 30 20 64
Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 29 44 128 44 29 94
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.7 8.1 8.1

HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 40% 24%
Vol Thru, % 74% 0% 76%
Vol Right, % 26% 60% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 117 50 84
LT Vol 0 20 20
Through Vol 87 0 64
RT Vol 30 30 0
Lane Flow Rate 172 74 124
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.192 0.088 0.146
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.02 4.311 4.259
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 881 836 831
Service Time 2.097 2.311 2.34
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.195 0.089 0.149
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.1 7.7 8.1
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.7 0.3 0.5
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1095 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
7: Sulphur Spring Ave & Crane Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 10 10 47 64 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 10 10 47 64 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 68 68 68 68 68 68
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 15 15 15 69 94 15
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 84 0 - 0 93 49
Stage 1 - - - - 49 -
Stage 2 - - - - 44 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1507 - - - 904 1016
Stage 1 - - - - 971 -
Stage 2 - - - - 976 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1507 - - - 895 1016
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 895 -
Stage 1 - - - - 961 -
Stage 2 - - - - 976 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 3.71 0 9.49

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 900 - - - 910
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - - 0.12
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.4 0 - - 9.5
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1096 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
8: Main St & Pratt Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 10 10 30 0 20 20 640 30 20 620 10 Future Vol, veh/h 10 10 10 30 0 20 20 640 30 20 620 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 2 2 0 1 6 0 1 1 0 6
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 150 - - 70 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 10 10 10 31 0 21 21 667 31 21 646 10
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1408 1439 659 1420 1429 684 662 0 0 699 0 0 Stage 1 699 699 - 725 725 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 709 741 - 695 704 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.227 - - 2.227 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 116 132 462 114 134 447 922 - - 893 - - Stage 1 429 440 - 415 428 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 423 422 - 431 438 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 105 125 458 97 127 446 916 - - 892 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 105 125 - 97 127 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 417 428 - 405 418 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 394 412 - 401 425 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 34.68 44.56 0.26 0.28

HCM LOS D E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 916 - - 152 141 892 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 - - 0.205 0.368 0.023 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9 - - 34.7 44.6 9.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - D E A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.7 1.5 0.1 - -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1097 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
9: Main St & Elmhurst Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 30 30 650 630 30
Future Vol, veh/h 40 30 30 650 630 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 1 9 0 0 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 99 99 99 99 99 99
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 40 30 30 657 636 30
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1378 662 676 0 - 0
Stage 1 661 - - - - -
Stage 2 717 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 159 460 911 - - -
Stage 1 512 - - - - -
Stage 2 482 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 148 456 903 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 148 - - - - -
Stage 1 481 - - - - -
Stage 2 478 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 30.95 0.4 0

HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 79 - 208 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - 0.34 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9.1 0 30.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A D - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1.4 - -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1098 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Saint Helena Streets Master Plan 10: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 140 20 26 10 20 80 13 460 10 50 500 110 Future Volume (veh/h) 140 20 26 10 20 80 13 460 10 50 500 110 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1318 1318 1856 1318 1318 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 151 22 22 11 22 17 14 495 10 54 538 108 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 276 27 26 98 150 93 144 732 15 376 640 93
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 1138 172 167 183 970 594 778 1287 26 887 1065 214 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 195 0 0 50 0 0 14 0 505 54 0 646
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1476 0 0 1746 0 0 778 0 1313 887 0 1278 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 17.0 2.9 0.0 27.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 28.7 0.0 17.0 19.8 0.0 27.7 Prop In Lane 0.77 0.11 0.22 0.34 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 328 0 0 340 0 0 144 0 747 376 0 733 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.68 0.14 0.00 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 550 0 0 588 0 0 476 0 1218 689 0 1186 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.4 0.0 0.0 24.6 0.0 0.0 31.5 0.0 9.9 17.0 0.0 13.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 2.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.5 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 4.4 0.6 0.0 14.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 28.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 31.6 0.0 10.3 17.1 0.0 41.9 LnGrp LOS C C C B B D
Approach Vol, veh/h 195 50 519 700
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.0 24.7 10.8 40.0
Approach LOS C C B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.1 18.4 40.1 18.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 8.7 9.2 8.7 9.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 54.3 17.8 54.3 17.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 30.7 9.4 29.7 3.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 0.2 1.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 27.5
HCM 7th LOS C
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1099 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
11: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.7
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 60 10 10 100 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 60 10 10 100 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 3 3 0 4 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 79 79 79 79 79 79
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 13 76 13 13 127 13
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 92 0 96 54
Stage 1 - - - - 54 -
Stage 2 - - - - 42 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1497 - 901 1011
Stage 1 - - - - 966 -
Stage 2 - - - - 978 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1493 - 888 1008
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 888 -
Stage 1 - - - - 964 -
Stage 2 - - - - 966 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0 3.72 9.75

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 897 - - 900 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.155 - - 0.008 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9.7 - - 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - 0 -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1100 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Saint Helena Streets Master Plan 12: Main St & Adams St Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 40 30 40 40 40 20 403 30 40 456 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 40 40 30 40 40 40 20 403 30 40 456 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.76 0.70 0.75 0.70 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.86 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1318 1318 1856 1318 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 41 15 41 41 19 21 415 28 41 470 38 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 168 151 46 160 144 55 75 508 34 121 544 31
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.39 0.39 0.07 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 457 689 210 427 660 252 1767 1214 82 1767 1187 96 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 97 0 0 101 0 0 21 0 443 41 0 508
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1355 0 0 1338 0 0 1767 0 1296 1767 0 1283 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 22.7 1.6 0.0 27.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 22.7 1.6 0.0 27.3 Prop In Lane 0.42 0.15 0.41 0.19 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 364 0 0 360 0 0 75 0 542 121 0 575 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.82 0.34 0.00 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 394 0 0 390 0 0 225 0 755 225 0 747 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.6 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 35.2 0.0 19.4 33.7 0.0 20.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.4 0.6 0.0 8.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.1 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 6.9 0.7 0.0 14.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 24.7 0.0 0.0 24.8 0.0 0.0 35.9 0.0 22.8 34.3 0.0 55.9 LnGrp LOS C C D C C E
Approach Vol, veh/h 97 101 464 549
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.7 24.8 23.4 54.3
Approach LOS C C C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 38.6 25.2 9.7 36.7 25.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.7 8.7 8.7 4.7 8.7 8.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.1 41.7 17.1 9.1 41.7 17.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 29.3 5.4 3.6 24.7 5.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 37.6
HCM 7th LOS D
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1101 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th AWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
13: Railroad Ave & Adams St Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.1
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 40 60 10 40 50 40 50 10 40 40 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 40 60 10 40 50 40 50 10 40 40 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 43 65 11 43 54 43 54 11 43 43 11
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8 7.9 8.3 8.3

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 40% 9% 10% 44%
Vol Thru, % 50% 36% 40% 44%
Vol Right, % 10% 55% 50% 11%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 100 110 100 90
LT Vol 40 10 10 40
Through Vol 50 40 40 40
RT Vol 10 60 50 10
Lane Flow Rate 109 120 109 98
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.138 0.141 0.129 0.125
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.586 4.248 4.289 4.601
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 783 845 837 780
Service Time 2.609 2.268 2.309 2.624
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.139 0.142 0.13 0.126
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.3 8 7.9 8.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1102 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
14: Library Ln & Adams St Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 10 10 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 20
Future Vol, veh/h 20 10 10 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 6 6 0 1 0 0 4 4 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72
Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 28 14 14 0 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 28
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 15 0 0 34 0 0 96 97 31 88 104 15
Stage 1 - - - - - - 82 82 - 15 15 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 14 15 - 73 89 -
Critical Hdwy 4.16 - - 4.16 - - 7.16 6.56 6.26 7.16 6.56 6.26 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.16 5.56 - 6.16 5.56 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.16 5.56 - 6.16 5.56 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.254 - - 2.254 - - 3.554 4.054 3.354 3.554 4.054 3.354 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1577 - - 1552 - - 877 785 1032 887 778 1053 Stage 1 - - - - - - 916 819 - 995 875 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 996 875 - 926 813 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1576 - - 1543 - - 834 766 1022 867 759 1052 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 834 766 - 867 759 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 894 799 - 994 874 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 970 874 - 906 794 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 3.66 0 9.39 8.51

HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 834 818 - - 1543 - - 1052
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 0.018 - - - - - 0.026
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9.4 7.3 0 - 0 - - 8.5
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.1
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1103 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
15: Main St & Hunt Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 20 433 70 30 496
Future Vol, veh/h 20 20 433 70 30 496
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 172 3 0 301 301 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 85 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 99 99 99 99 99 99
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 20 20 437 71 30 501
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1507 777 0 0 809 0
Stage 1 774 - - - - -
Stage 2 734 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 132 395 - - 812 -
Stage 1 453 - - - - -
Stage 2 473 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 75 281 - - 579 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 192 - - - - -
Stage 1 323 - - - - -
Stage 2 375 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 24.11 0 0.66

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 228 579 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.177 0.052 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 24.1 11.6 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0.2 -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1104 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
16: Church St/Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 40 20 30 20 60 10 20 40 50 40 20
Future Vol, veh/h 40 40 20 30 20 60 10 20 40 50 40 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 17 0 49 17 0 49 5 0 17 3 0 5
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 43 43 21 32 21 64 11 21 43 53 43 21
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 134 0 0 113 0 0 299 385 119 321 364 107 Stage 1 - - - - - - 187 187 - 166 166 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 111 198 - 155 198 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1444 - - 1470 - - 652 547 930 630 562 944 Stage 1 - - - - - - 812 743 - 834 759 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 891 735 - 845 735 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1377 - - 1402 - - 522 470 872 508 483 896 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 522 470 - 508 483 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 749 686 - 776 706 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 794 684 - 741 678 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 3.08 2.08 11.25 13.5

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 651 675 - - 427 - - 540
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.114 0.031 - - 0.023 - - 0.217
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 11.2 7.7 0 - 7.6 0 - 13.5
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.8
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1105 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
17: Oak Ave & Mitchell Dr Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 8.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 10 10 10 30 70 10 70 10 90 80 10
Future Vol, veh/h 20 10 10 10 30 70 10 70 10 90 80 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 92 92 81 81 92 92 92 81 92 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 25 12 11 11 37 86 11 76 11 111 87 12
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 126 0 0 23 0 0 170 215 18 205 178 84 Stage 1 - - - - - - 67 67 - 105 105 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 103 148 - 100 73 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1454 - - 1585 - - 791 681 1058 751 714 972 Stage 1 - - - - - - 941 837 - 898 806 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 900 773 - 904 833 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1449 - - 1585 - - 668 662 1058 642 695 968 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 668 662 - 642 695 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 924 823 - 889 798 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 785 765 - 798 818 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 3.88 0.59 11.06 12.71

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 691 848 - - 128 - - 676
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.141 0.017 - - 0.007 - - 0.311
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 11.1 7.5 0 - 7.3 0 - 12.7
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.1 - - 0 - - 1.3
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1106 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Saint Helena Streets Master Plan 18: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope St Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 140 110 30 70 90 483 50 60 466 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 140 110 30 70 90 483 50 60 466 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 6 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.91 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1318 1318 1856 1318 1318 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 143 112 31 12 92 493 51 61 476 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 0 43 184 221 61 222 165 535 16 142 545 8
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.43 0.43 0.08 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1856 1572 1399 387 1404 1767 1166 121 1767 1284 27 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 143 143 0 12 92 0 544 61 0 486 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1856 1572 1786 0 1404 1767 0 1287 1767 0 1311 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.0 6.3 0.0 0.6 4.3 0.0 35.5 2.8 0.0 29.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 2.0 6.3 0.0 0.6 4.3 0.0 35.5 2.8 0.0 29.2 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.02
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 43 184 283 0 222 165 0 566 142 0 550 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.51 0.00 0.05 0.56 0.00 0.96 0.43 0.00 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 43 184 397 0 312 186 0 556 186 0 549 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 36.6 32.9 0.0 30.5 37.0 0.0 24.2 37.4 0.0 23.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 17.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 28.8 0.8 0.0 15.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.2 0.0 0.0 7.3 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 3.8 2.7 0.0 0.2 1.9 0.0 24.6 1.2 0.0 12.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 53.9 33.4 0.0 30.6 38.1 0.0 112.2 38.1 0.0 46.1 LnGrp LOS D C C D F D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 143 155 636 547
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.9 33.2 101.5 45.2
Approach LOS D C F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.7 43.5 23.2 11.6 44.6 6.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.7 7.7 9.7 4.7 * 7.7 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 33.9 19.0 9.0 * 37 2.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 31.2 8.3 4.8 37.5 4.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 68.9
HCM 7th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1107 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Saint Helena Streets Master Plan 19: Main St & Grayson Avenue Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 30 40 773 816 20
Future Volume (veh/h) 20 30 40 773 816 20
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 30 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1318 1318 1318
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 2 41 789 833 19
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 80 8 111 1053 879 20
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.78 0.66 0.66
Sat Flow, veh/h 1523 152 1767 1318 1283 29
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 23 0 41 789 0 852
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1752 0 1767 1318 0 1312
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 0.0 1.9 27.4 0.0 53.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 1.9 27.4 0.0 53.1
Prop In Lane 0.87 0.09 1.00 0.02
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 93 0 111 1053 0 899
V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.00 0.37 0.75 0.00 0.95
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 228 0 188 1390 0 1109
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.9 0.0 42.4 6.9 0.0 13.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 13.3
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.3 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.5 0.0 0.9 15.1 0.0 15.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 43.4 0.0 43.2 31.2 0.0 26.4
LnGrp LOS D D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 23 830 852
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.4 31.8 26.4
Approach LOS D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.3 65.0 75.3 9.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.7 9.1 * 9.1 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 71.5 * 89 11.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 55.1 29.4 3.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 29.3
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1108 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
20: Main St & Sulphur Springs Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 44 37 803 826 20
Future Vol, veh/h 10 44 37 803 826 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 4 0 0 4
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 150 0 80 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 10 45 38 819 843 20
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1752 857 867 0 - 0
Stage 1 857 - - - - -
Stage 2 895 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 93 355 772 - - -
Stage 1 414 - - - - -
Stage 2 397 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 88 354 769 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 220 - - - - -
Stage 1 392 - - - - -
Stage 2 396 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 17.66 0.44 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 769 - 220 354 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.049 - 0.046 0.127 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9.9 - 22.1 16.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.1 0.4 - -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1109 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th AWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
21: Starr Ave & Hunt Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 60 10 10 40 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 60 10 10 40 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 13 78 13 13 52 13
Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0
Approach EB WB NB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach Left NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7 7.4 7.6

HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1
Vol Left, % 80% 0% 50%
Vol Thru, % 0% 14% 50%
Vol Right, % 20% 86% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 50 70 20
LT Vol 40 0 10
Through Vol 0 10 10
RT Vol 10 60 0
Lane Flow Rate 65 91 26
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.076 0.09 0.031
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.193 3.57 4.235
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 853 998 842
Service Time 2.226 1.613 2.279
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.076 0.091 0.031
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.6 7 7.4
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.3 0.1
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1110 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
22: Pope Street & Starr Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 190 220 50 40 20
Future Vol, veh/h 20 190 220 50 40 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 21 198 229 52 42 21
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 281 0 - 0 495 255
Stage 1 - - - - 255 -
Stage 2 - - - - 240 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1276 - - - 532 781
Stage 1 - - - - 785 -
Stage 2 - - - - 798 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1276 - - - 522 781
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 522 -
Stage 1 - - - - 771 -
Stage 2 - - - - 798 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.75 0 11.86

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 171 - - - 587
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - - - 0.106
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.9 0 - - 11.9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1111 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
23: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 140 30 20 230 20 30 10 10 10 10 20 Future Vol, veh/h 30 140 30 20 230 20 30 10 10 10 10 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 85 - - 90 - - - - 50 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 34 157 34 22 258 22 34 11 11 11 11 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 281 0 0 191 0 0 551 567 174 545 573 270 Stage 1 - - - - - - 242 242 - 315 315 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 309 326 - 230 258 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1276 - - 1377 - - 444 431 867 448 428 767 Stage 1 - - - - - - 760 704 - 694 654 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 699 647 - 770 692 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1276 - - 1377 - - 402 413 867 412 410 767 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 402 413 - 412 410 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 740 685 - 683 643 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 656 636 - 728 674 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.18 0.57 13.85 12.34

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 405 867 1276 - - 1377 - - 535
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.111 0.013 0.026 - - 0.016 - - 0.084 HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 15 9.2 7.9 - - 7.7 - - 12.3
HCM Lane LOS C A A - - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.3
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1112 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
24: Silverado Trail & Pratt Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 30 20 520 540 20
Future Vol, veh/h 10 30 20 520 540 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 34 22 584 607 22
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1247 618 629 0 - 0
Stage 1 618 - - - - -
Stage 2 629 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 191 487 948 - - -
Stage 1 536 - - - - -
Stage 2 529 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 184 487 948 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 184 - - - - -
Stage 1 517 - - - - -
Stage 2 529 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 16.99 0.33 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 67 - 345 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - 0.13 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 8.9 0 17 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.4 - -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1113 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
25: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 20 520 40 10 560
Future Vol, veh/h 30 20 520 40 10 560
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 100 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 33 22 578 44 11 622
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1244 600 0 0 622 0
Stage 1 600 - - - - -
Stage 2 644 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 191 499 - - 954 -
Stage 1 546 - - - - -
Stage 2 521 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 189 499 - - 954 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 328 - - - - -
Stage 1 546 - - - - -
Stage 2 515 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 16.08 0 0.15

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 380 954 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.146 0.012 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 16.1 8.8 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0 -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1114 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
26: Silverado Trail & Pope Street Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 80 60 100 480 430 160
Future Vol, veh/h 80 60 100 480 430 160
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - 225
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 88 66 110 527 473 176
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1220 473 648 0 - 0
Stage 1 473 - - - - -
Stage 2 747 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 198 590 933 - - -
Stage 1 625 - - - - -
Stage 2 466 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 175 590 933 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 310 - - - - -
Stage 1 552 - - - - -
Stage 2 466 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 20.2 1.62 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 933 - 389 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.118 - 0.396 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 9.4 - 20.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 1.8 - -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1115 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
27: Main St & Mills Ln Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 783 10 10 826 10
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 783 10 10 826 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - 150 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 799 10 10 843 10
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1667 1678 848 1667 1678 804 853 0 0 809 0 0 Stage 1 868 868 - 804 804 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 799 809 - 863 873 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 4.13 - - 4.13 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 2.227 - - 2.227 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 76 94 360 76 94 381 782 - - 812 - -
Stage 1 346 368 - 375 394 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 378 392 - 348 366 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 73 93 360 73 93 381 782 - - 812 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 73 93 - 73 93 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 341 364 - 375 394 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 367 392 - 334 362 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 15.3 14.7 0 0.11

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 782 - - 360 381 812 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.028 0.027 0.013 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 0 - - 15.3 14.7 9.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - C B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1116 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Saint Helena Streets Master Plan 28: Main St & Charter Oak Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 10 120 60 10 30 90 573 130 40 666 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 20 10 120 60 10 30 90 573 130 40 666 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1484 1484 1484 1484 1484 1484 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 21 10 18 63 10 14 94 597 127 42 694 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 57 27 49 131 21 29 120 674 143 71 786 10
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 585 279 501 1009 160 224 1767 1471 313 1767 1826 24 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 0 0 87 0 0 94 0 724 42 0 703
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1365 0 0 1394 0 0 1767 0 1784 1767 0 1850 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 25.4 1.6 0.0 23.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 25.4 1.6 0.0 23.9 Prop In Lane 0.43 0.37 0.72 0.16 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.01
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 133 0 0 181 0 0 120 0 817 71 0 796 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.89 0.59 0.00 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 341 0 0 226 0 0 157 0 987 132 0 997 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.9 0.0 0.0 27.7 0.0 0.0 31.4 0.0 16.9 32.3 0.0 17.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 16.9 0.0 8.5 7.6 0.0 8.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 11.3 0.8 0.0 10.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 30.6 0.0 0.0 29.6 0.0 0.0 48.3 0.0 25.5 39.9 0.0 25.9 LnGrp LOS C C D C D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 49 87 818 745
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.6 29.6 28.1 26.7
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.5 36.1 11.4 9.4 34.2 13.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.1 37.9 17.1 6.1 36.9 11.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 27.4 4.3 5.6 25.9 6.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.1 0.0 3.6 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 27.6
HCM 7th LOS C
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1117 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th AWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
29: Oak Ave & Pine St Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.4
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 10 0 20 10 10 10 160 20 10 150 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 10 0 20 10 10 10 160 20 10 150 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 0 11 0 22 11 11 11 172 22 11 161 0
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.9 8 8.5 8.4

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 5% 0% 50% 6%
Vol Thru, % 84% 100% 25% 94%
Vol Right, % 11% 0% 25% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 190 10 40 160
LT Vol 10 0 20 10
Through Vol 160 10 10 150
RT Vol 20 0 10 0
Lane Flow Rate 204 11 43 172
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.234 0.014 0.057 0.201
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.123 4.829 4.736 4.213
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 858 745 761 840
Service Time 2.211 2.832 2.736 2.305
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.238 0.015 0.057 0.205
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.5 7.9 8 8.4
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 0 0.2 0.7
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1118 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th AWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
30: Oak Ave & Adams St Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 30 10 60 30 20 20 160 80 10 140 10 Future Vol, veh/h 10 30 10 60 30 20 20 160 80 10 140 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 12 37 12 74 37 25 25 198 99 12 173 12
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh8.9 9.6 10.7 9.6

HCM LOS A A B A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 8% 20% 55% 6%
Vol Thru, % 62% 60% 27% 88%
Vol Right, % 31% 20% 18% 6%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 260 50 110 160
LT Vol 20 10 60 10
Through Vol 160 30 30 140
RT Vol 80 10 20 10
Lane Flow Rate 321 62 136 198
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.404 0.09 0.197 0.264
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.535 5.261 5.222 4.809
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 790 674 682 743
Service Time 2.588 3.348 3.298 2.87
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.406 0.092 0.199 0.266
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 10.7 8.9 9.6 9.6
HCM Lane LOS B A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 2 0.3 0.7 1.1
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1119 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th AWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
31: Oak Ave & Spring St Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh10.3
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 40 40 30 40 40 30 160 20 30 150 20 Future Vol, veh/h 40 40 40 30 40 40 30 160 20 30 150 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 48 48 48 36 48 48 36 193 24 36 181 24
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh9.8 9.6 10.8 10.6

HCM LOS A A B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 14% 33% 27% 15%
Vol Thru, % 76% 33% 36% 75%
Vol Right, % 10% 33% 36% 10%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 210 120 110 200
LT Vol 30 40 30 30
Through Vol 160 40 40 150
RT Vol 20 40 40 20
Lane Flow Rate 253 145 133 241
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.354 0.213 0.195 0.338
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.041 5.303 5.294 5.057
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 716 677 679 716
Service Time 3.049 3.334 3.326 3.064
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.353 0.214 0.196 0.337
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 10.8 9.8 9.6 10.6
HCM Lane LOS B A A B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.6 0.8 0.7 1.5
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1120 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
32: Main St & Spring St Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 60 80 473 476 40
Future Vol, veh/h 30 60 80 473 476 40
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 155 202 0 0 202
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 31 63 83 493 496 42
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1378 874 740 0 - 0
Stage 1 719 - - - - -
Stage 2 659 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 159 348 862 - - -
Stage 1 481 - - - - -
Stage 2 513 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 86 239 696 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 205 - - - - -
Stage 1 324 - - - - -
Stage 2 414 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 31.66 1.57 0

HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 260 - 227 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.12 - 0.414 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 10.9 0 31.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A D - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 1.9 - -
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1121 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
33: Pope St & Church St Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 110 0 10 230 40 10 0 0 30 0 70
Future Vol, veh/h 30 110 0 10 230 40 10 0 0 30 0 70
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 10 0 7 7 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 2
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 34 124 0 11 258 45 11 0 0 34 0 79
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 313 0 0 131 0 0 481 534 131 504 511 293 Stage 1 - - - - - - 198 198 - 313 313 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 283 336 - 191 198 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1241 - - 1449 - - 494 451 916 476 464 744 Stage 1 - - - - - - 802 735 - 695 655 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 722 640 - 808 735 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1229 - - 1439 - - 420 426 910 454 439 736 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 420 426 - 454 439 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 773 709 - 682 643 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 637 628 - 785 709 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.72 0.27 13.8 12.09

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 420 386 - - 62 - - 620
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 0.027 - - 0.008 - - 0.181
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 13.8 8 0 - 7.5 0 - 12.1
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.7
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1122 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th TWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
36: Charter Oak Ave & Oak Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 70 40 70 80 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 70 40 70 80 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 76 43 76 87 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 120 0 - 0 179 82
Stage 1 - - - - 82 -
Stage 2 - - - - 98 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1462 - - - 808 976
Stage 1 - - - - 939 -
Stage 2 - - - - 924 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1462 - - - 802 976
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 802 -
Stage 1 - - - - 932 -
Stage 2 - - - - 924 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.94 0 10

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 225 - - - 818
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.12
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - - 10
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1123 of 1259 ends

HCM 7th AWSC Saint Helena Streets Master Plan
37: Oak Ave & Madrona Ave Cumulative MD Plus Project Oak Charter Oak Ave Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.7
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 106 50 80 73 10 25 5 110 10 10 0
Future Vol, veh/h 10 106 50 80 73 10 25 5 110 10 10 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 115 54 87 79 11 27 5 120 11 11 0
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.7 9 8.4 8.3

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 18% 6% 49% 50%
Vol Thru, % 4% 64% 45% 50%
Vol Right, % 79% 30% 6% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 140 166 163 20
LT Vol 25 10 80 10
Through Vol 5 106 73 10
RT Vol 110 50 10 0
Lane Flow Rate 152 180 177 22
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.184 0.22 0.227 0.031
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.356 4.381 4.606 5.052
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 823 819 780 707
Service Time 2.387 2.411 2.635 3.092
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.185 0.22 0.227 0.031
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.4 8.7 9 8.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1124 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1125 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Silverado Trail Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Pope Minor Street Pope Street/Howell Mountain Road Peak Hour AM Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 240 10 140 30 x North/South
Through 480 450 0 0 East/West
Right 40 220 110 10
Total 760 680 250 40
Intersection Geometry
1 4

25.7 Approach with Worst Case Delay EB
250
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Met

1.8 250 1,730
4 100 800
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Pope
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1126 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Silverado Trail Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Pope Minor Street Pope Street/Howell Mountain Road Peak Hour AM Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 240 10 140 30 x North/South
Through 480 450 0 0 East/West
Right 40 220 110 10
Total 760 680 250 40
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Silverado Trail Pope Street/Howell Mountain Road 1 1
YES
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,440 250
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1127 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Silverado Trail Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Pope Minor Street Pope Street/Howell Mountain Road Peak Hour PM Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 140 10 130 50 x North/South
Through 530 620 0 0 East/West
Right 20 230 210 10
Total 690 860 340 60
Intersection Geometry
1 4
41 Approach with Worst Case Delay EB
340
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Met

3.9 340 1,950
4 100 800
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Pope
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1128 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Silverado Trail Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Pope Minor Street Pope Street/Howell Mountain Road Peak Hour PM Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 140 10 130 50 x North/South
Through 530 620 0 0 East/West
Right 20 230 210 10
Total 690 860 340 60
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Silverado Trail Pope Street/Howell Mountain Road 1 1
YES
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,550 340
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1129 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Silverado Trail Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Pope Minor Street Pope Street/Howell Mountain Road Peak Hour MD Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 110 10 80 30 x North/South
Through 480 430 0 0 East/West
Right 40 160 70 20
Total 630 600 150 50
Intersection Geometry
1 4

13.4 Approach with Worst Case Delay EB
150
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Met

0.6 150 1,430
4 100 800
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Pope
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1130 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Silverado Trail Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Pope Minor Street Pope Street/Howell Mountain Road Peak Hour MD Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 110 10 80 30 x North/South
Through 480 430 0 0 East/West
Right 40 160 70 20
Total 630 600 150 50
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Silverado Trail Pope Street/Howell Mountain Road 1 1
YES
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,230 150
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1131 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Silverado Trail Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Adams Minor Street Adams Street Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 10 0 40 0 x North/South
Through 0 0 190 180 East/West
Right 0 10 30 10
Total 10 10 260 190
Intersection Geometry
1 4

19.9 Approach with Worst Case Delay EB
260
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Adams
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Not Met

1.4 260 470
4 100 800
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1132 of 1259 ends

Project
Major Street Silverado Trail Scenario
Minor Street Adams Street Peak Hour
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 10 0 40 0 x North/South
Through 0 0 190 180 East/West
Right 0 10 30 10
Total 10 10 260 190
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Adams
Saint Helena SMP
AM
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Silverado Trail Adams Street 1 1
NO
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 20 260
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1133 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Silverado Trail Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Adams Minor Street Adams Street Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 110 0 0 0 x North/South
Through 650 810 10 0 East/West
Right 0 0 90 0
Total 760 810 100 0
Intersection Geometry
1 3

24.8 Approach with Worst Case Delay EB
100
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Adams
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Met

0.7 100 1,670
4 100 650
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1134 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Silverado Trail Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Adams Minor Street Adams Street Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 110 0 0 0 x North/South
Through 650 810 10 0 East/West
Right 0 0 90 0
Total 760 810 100 0
1 1
YES
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,570 100
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Silverado Trail Adams Street 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1135 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Silverado Trail Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Adams Minor Street Adams Street Peak Hour MD
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 120 0 0 0 x North/South
Through 540 570 10 0 East/West
Right 0 0 110 0
Total 660 570 120 0
Intersection Geometry
1 3
17 Approach with Worst Case Delay EB
120
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Met

0.6 120 1,350
4 100 650
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Adams
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1136 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Silverado Trail Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Adams Minor Street Adams Street Peak Hour MD
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 120 0 0 0 x North/South
Through 540 570 10 0 East/West
Right 0 0 110 0
Total 660 570 120 0
1 1
NO
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,230 120
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Silverado Trail Adams Street 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1137 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Oak Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Charter Oak Avenue Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 0 0 0 x North/South
Through 150 160 30 60 East/West
Right 0 0 0 0
Total 150 160 30 60
Intersection Geometry
1 4
12 Approach with Worst Case Delay WB
60 Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Not Met Not Met

0.2 60 400
4 100 800
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1138 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Oak Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Charter Oak Avenue Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 0 0 0 x North/South
Through 150 160 30 60 East/West
Right 0 0 0 0
Total 150 160 30 60
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Oak Avenue Charter Oak Avenue 1 1
NO
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 310 60
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1139 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Oak Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Charter Oak Avenue Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 0 0 0 x North/South
Through 130 120 60 30 East/West
Right 0 0 0 0
Total 130 120 60 30
Intersection Geometry
1 4

11.3 Approach with Worst Case Delay EB
60 Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Not Met Not Met

0.2 60 340
4 100 800
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1140 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Oak Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Charter Oak Avenue Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 0 0 0 x North/South
Through 130 120 60 30 East/West
Right 0 0 0 0
Total 130 120 60 30
1 1
NO
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 250 60
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Oak Avenue Charter Oak Avenue 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1141 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Oak Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Charter Oak Avenue Peak Hour MD
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 0 0 0 x North/South
Through 80 90 70 40 East/West
Right 0 0 0 0
Total 80 90 70 40
Intersection Geometry
1 4

10.7 Approach with Worst Case Delay EB
70 Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Not Met Not Met

0.2 70 280
4 100 800
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1142 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Oak Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Charter Oak Avenue Peak Hour MD
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 0 0 0 x North/South
Through 80 90 70 40 East/West
Right 0 0 0 0
Total 80 90 70 40
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Oak Avenue Charter Oak Avenue 1 1
NO
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 170 70
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1143 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Grayson Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Oak Avenue Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 120 60 0 North/South
Through 0 0 90 130 x East/West
Right 0 40 0 90
Total 0 160 150 220
Intersection Geometry
1 3

13.2 Approach with Worst Case Delay SB
160
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Not Met

0.6 160 530
4 100 650
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1144 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Grayson Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Oak Avenue Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 120 60 0 North/South
Through 0 0 90 130 x East/West
Right 0 40 0 90
Total 0 160 150 220
1 1
NO
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 370 160
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Grayson Avenue Oak Avenue 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1145 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Grayson Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Oak Avenue Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 90 40 0 North/South
Through 0 0 100 100 x East/West
Right 0 30 0 90
Total 0 120 140 190
Intersection Geometry
1 3

11.7 Approach with Worst Case Delay SB
120
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Not Met

0.4 120 450
4 100 650
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1146 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Grayson Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Oak Avenue Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 90 40 0 North/South
Through 0 0 100 100 x East/West
Right 0 30 0 90
Total 0 120 140 190
1 1
NO
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 330 120
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Grayson Avenue Oak Avenue 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1147 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Grayson Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Oak Avenue Peak Hour MD
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 80 10 0 North/South
Through 0 0 40 50 x East/West
Right 0 10 0 70
Total 0 90 50 120
Intersection Geometry
1 3

9.9 Approach with Worst Case Delay SB
90 Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Not Met Not Met

0.2 90 260
4 100 650
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1148 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Grayson Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Oak Avenue Peak Hour MD
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 80 10 0 North/South
Through 0 0 40 50 x East/West
Right 0 10 0 70
Total 0 90 50 120
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Grayson Avenue Oak Avenue 1 1
NO
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 170 90
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1149 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Oak Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Mitchell Drive Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 120 30 12 x North/South
Through 150 92 30 40 East/West
Right 0 20 0 60
Total 150 232 60 112
Intersection Geometry
1 4
17 Approach with Worst Case Delay SB
232
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Not Met

1.1 112 554
4 100 800
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1150 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Oak Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Mitchell Drive Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 120 30 12 x North/South
Through 150 92 30 40 East/West
Right 0 20 0 60
Total 150 232 60 112
1 1
NO
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 382 112
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Oak Avenue Mitchell Drive 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1151 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Oak Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Mitchell Drive Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 150 20 6 x North/South
Through 130 66 30 50 East/West
Right 0 20 0 70
Total 130 236 50 126
Intersection Geometry
1 4

15.9 Approach with Worst Case Delay SB
236
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Not Met
1 126 542
4 100 800
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1152 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Oak Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Mitchell Drive Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 150 20 6 x North/South
Through 130 66 30 50 East/West
Right 0 20 0 70
Total 130 236 50 126
1 1
NO
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 366 126
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Oak Avenue Mitchell Drive 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1153 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Oak Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Mitchell Drive Peak Hour MD
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 90 20 1 x North/South
Through 80 71 0 30 East/West
Right 0 10 0 70
Total 80 171 20 101
Intersection Geometry
1 4

7.5 Approach with Worst Case Delay EB
20 Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Not Met
0 101 372
4 100 800
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1154 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Oak Avenue Scenario Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak Minor Street Mitchell Drive Peak Hour MD
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 0 90 20 1 x North/South
Through 80 71 0 30 East/West
Right 0 10 0 70
Total 80 171 20 101
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Oak Avenue Mitchell Drive 1 1
NO
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 251 101
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1155 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Main Street Scenario
Minor Street Charter Oak Avenue Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 110 10 10 70 x North/South
Through 769 802 10 10 East/West
Right 130 30 120 10
Total 1,009 842 140 90
Intersection Geometry
1 4
1584.5
Approach with Worst Case Delay WB
90 Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak - Charter Oak Terminus Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Warrant Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project
Oak - Charter Oak Terminus
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
YES
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Met

39.6 140 2,081
4 100 800
Met
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1156 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Main Street Scenario
Minor Street Charter Oak Avenue Peak Hour AM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 110 10 10 70 x North/South
Through 769 802 10 10 East/West
Right 130 30 120 10
Total 1,009 842 140 90
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project
Oak - Charter Oak Terminus
2 1
YES
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,851 140
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Main Street Charter Oak Avenue 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1157 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Main Street Scenario
Minor Street Charter Oak Avenue Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 100 30 20 70 x North/South
Through 694 834 10 0 East/West
Right 120 10 110 20
Total 914 874 140 90
Intersection Geometry
1 4
1912
Approach with Worst Case Delay WB
90 Met Met

47.8 140 2,018
4 100 800
Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak - Charter Oak Terminus Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Warrant Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project
Oak - Charter Oak Terminus
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
YES
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1158 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Main Street Scenario
Minor Street Charter Oak Avenue Peak Hour PM
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 100 30 20 70 x North/South
Through 694 834 10 0 East/West
Right 120 10 110 20
Total 914 874 140 90
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,788 140
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Main Street Charter Oak Avenue Cumulative Conditions Plus Project
Oak - Charter Oak Terminus
2 1
YES
Number of Approach Lanes
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1159 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Main Street Scenario
Minor Street Charter Oak Avenue Peak Hour MD
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 90 40 20 60 x North/South
Through 573 666 10 10 East/West
Right 130 10 120 30
Total 793 716 150 100
Intersection Geometry
1 4
480
Approach with Worst Case Delay WB
100
Met Met

13.3 150 1,759
4 100 800
Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Oak - Charter Oak Terminus Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Warrant Met
Cumulative Conditions Plus Project
Oak - Charter Oak Terminus
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
YES
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1160 of 1259 ends

Project Saint Helena SMP
Major Street Main Street Scenario
Minor Street Charter Oak Avenue Peak Hour MD
Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 90 40 20 60 x North/South
Through 573 666 10 10 East/West
Right 130 10 120 30
Total 793 716 150 100
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,509 150
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met Main Street Charter Oak Avenue Cumulative Conditions Plus Project
Oak - Charter Oak Terminus
2 1
YES
Number of Approach Lanes
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1161 of 1259 ends

St Helena Streets Master Plan
Appendix G
Stormwater + Utilities
Technical Memo
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1162 of 1259 ends

St. Helena Streets Master Plan
Existing Conditions:

Stormwater Infrastructure +
Utilities
December 2, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1163 of 1259 ends

Proposed Infrastructure Narrative Page 2 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN

STORMWATER AND UTILITIES TECHNICAL STUDY
Overview
The purpose of the Stormwater and Utilities Technical Study is to provide an overview of utility infrastructure within the City of St. Helena, as it relates to the St. Helena Streets Master Plan. This memorandum identifies opportunities and constraints for the Streets Master Plan presented by the existing utility infrastructure. Also included is a discussion of stormwater treatment measures and opportunities for incorporating green infrastructure into the Streets Master Plan.

In April 2021, Carollo Engineering prepared an “Integrated Utility Master Plan” for the City of St. Helena, which assessed existing city-wide water, storm drain, and sanitary sewer utilities. This memorandum builds upon the analyses conducted as part of that 2021 plan. All figures referenced in this Study are from the 2021 Plan.

Storm Drain Infrastructure and Green Infrastructure
There are three main watersheds within St. Helena: Sulphur Creek, Napa River, and York Creek. York Creek and Sulphur Creek both drain to the Napa River, which eventually flows to the San Pablo Bay. Figure 5.8 in the appendix document illustrates the existing storm drain infrastructure within the city, which drains to various outfalls to the streams and rivers within the City.

The Integrated Utility Master Plan also identified existing storm drain lines that have capacity deficiencies and associated recommended capital improvement projects (CIP) to address deficiencies. These are shown in the appendix document on Figures 6.8, Existing Storm Drainage System Capacity Deficiencies and 6.11, Storm Drainage System Improvements. Several existing mains are proposed to be replaced with larger pipes.

Portions of the city are mapped within the FEMA 1% annual chance special flood hazard zone. This includes areas adjacent to Sulphur Creek and the Napa River. Portions of the City are within FEMA zones X and AE.

Caltrans recently completed improvements to the storm drainage system along State Route 29, between Adams Street and Madrona Avenue. These improvements included installation of new storm drain pipes, inlets, and manholes.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1164 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 3 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
2040 General Plan Update: Figure 9.1 Flood Zones
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1165 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 4 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
Regulatory Requirements
The City of St. Helena storm drain system is operated under the State Water Board 2013 Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit (Permit). Under this permit, the City is required to regulate all projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (Regulated Projects). Section E.12.c. of the Permit includes requirements for road and linear underground projects such as utility pipeline capital improvement projects. An excerpt of the permit requirements is provided below. As noted in the requirements, road projects are subject to stormwater treatment requirements and implementation of green infrastructure. However, there are exceptions for certain types of road projects.

Excerpt from the State Water Board Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit (Permit) Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1166 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 5 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
There is currently a draft updated Phase II Small MS4 Permit anticipated in 2025. It is expected most of the work associated with this Streets Master Plan will fall under this new permit. Attachment D6 of the new permit contains guidance on post-construction stormwater management. Some key changes to the new permit include:
• Exemptions for road or LUP projects updated as follows:

Excerpt of draft update to the Phase II Small MS4 Permit • Stormwater Control Measure Prioritization
• Interceptor Tree Credits
Stormwater Toolkit Measures
As previously noted, St. Helena is under the regulatory requirements of the Phase II Small MS4 Permit (Permit).

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. To minimize the need for extensive stormwater treatments, the use of impervious paving should be reduced wherever possible. Regulated projects must also meet retention and peak flow control standards with the support of stormwater treatment measures.

To aid in the planning and design of improvements proposed by the Streets Master Plan, the section below provides a list of green infrastructure tools—also known as stormwater treatment measures—that can be incorporated into street design to meet regulatory requirements. Also included in this section is a discussion of the opportunities and constraints associated with each of the relevant green infrastructure tools.

The City should use the following green infrastructure tools to treat stormwater, prioritized in the order listed below and the guidelines in the Permit. Each applicable measure is described in further detail below. • Impervious Connection to Vegetated Areas (Self-retaining Areas) • Interceptor Tree Planting and Preservation
• Pervious Pavement Systems
• Bioretention Facilities
• Flow-Through Stormwater Control Measures
o Biofiltration (lined bioretention with perf pipe)
o Landscape-based Flow-Through (tree-box media filter, etc.) o Physical structured (media filters, hydrodynamic separators, etc.) Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1167 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 6 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
• Subsurface Infiltration Stormwater Control Measures (infiltration trenches, dry wells, infiltration galleries, etc.)
Impervious Connection to Vegetated Areas: This green infrastructure measure manages and treats stormwater by sloping impervious areas to drain into adjacent vegetated (pervious) areas. This is the simplest measure with runoff sheet flowing directly to landscaped areas. The ratio of impervious to pervious area is limited to 2:1 maximum. There are limits to the slope and ponding depth of the vegetated areas that should be reviewed during design. Vegetated areas are typically located within medians, in landscape strips adjacent to the roadway, or behind the sidewalk. If space and right-of-way is constrained and limit the size of pervious area, a bioretention system can accept and treat significantly more impervious area than a standard vegetated area.

Town of Atherton Green Infrastructure Landscaped Shoulder Typical Detail Interceptor Tree Planting and Preservation: Street Trees can reduce run-off from impervious areas by intercepting
rainwater. Utilizing interceptor trees is a good strategy for reducing the amount of impervious area within the street that requires treatment, and thus reducing the size of other green infrastructure measures. Depending on the size of the mature tree canopy, the total impervious area requiring treatment can be reduced. Any trees (existing and proposed) within the right-of-way should be considered for this credit.

The City of St. Helena should incorporate street trees and get credit to help reduce the size of other treatment measures and free up space within the right-of-way.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1168 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 7 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
Pervious Pavement Systems: If site constraints
limit the amount of landscaping, another
solution is pervious pavement. Types of
pervious pavement include pavers set in gravel,
decomposed granite, pervious concrete, and
pervious asphalt pavements. These pavement
types can either be self-treating or selfretaining and be designed to accept runoff from impervious surfaces via sheet flow. Stormwater
is stored in the gravel base and infiltrated into
subgrade, if soil conditions allow. pervious
pavement is recommended for parking strips
where a crowned road could send runoff
towards the parking lane from a typical
impervious travel lane.

Anticipated use and traffic volumes should be considered when implementing pervious pavement systems. For example, parking areas, which have less vehicle traffic vehicular travel lanes, are often more suitable considering the long-term performance and maintenance of the pervious pavement. Additionally, pervious pavements must incorporate geotechnical recommendations and proper edge treatments, such as deepened curbs, to preserve integrity of the pervious pavement and adjacent surfaces.

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.

Bioretention facilities should be used when right-of-way is constrained limiting the use of vegetated areas or pervious pavements. Vegetated areas used for stormwater treatment must 50% of the tributary impervious area.

Bioretention is typically only 4% of the tributary impervious area, so the required footprint is much smaller. However, bioretention areas require a deeper basin and soil section, as well as 3:1 side slopes or structural curbs.

Bioretention areas should be located downstream of the roadway with stormwater sheet flowing from the roadway into a gutter or swale, then eventually routed to the bioretention area. The soil section includes a 6”-12” ponding depth, minimum of 18” bioretention soil mix, and minimum 12” gravel layer. Where soil conditions allow for infiltration, bioretention should be designed without any horizontal liners and may include an elevated perforated pipe where the retention volume is achieved below the pipe elevation within the gravel section. Bioretention is commonly placed in landscape strips, bulb-outs, or behind the sidewalk. If space limits the ability to have sloped sides to create a ponding and freeboard depth, a concrete wall or structural curb can be used to create the basin.

Where bioretention basins are located directly adjacent to roadway and sidewalk sections, the curbs around the basin will need to be structurally designed as retaining walls, since bioretention soil media does not provide lateral support for adjacent improvements.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1169 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 8 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
BASMAA Green Infrastructure Bioretention Section Detail BASMAA Green Infrastructure Bioretention Bulbout Detail Flow-Through Stormwater Control Measures:

1. Biofiltration: A biofiltration system is a bioretention facility with an impermeable liner. These systems should be used when infiltration is not feasible due to soil conditions or proximity to elements such as building foundations. Biofiltration measures can be installed in any landscaped area in the right-of-way that is downstream of an impervious area.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1170 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 9 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS

2. Landscape-based Flow-through Stormwater Control Measures: A tree-box media filter is often used in urban areas where space is limited. These can be located next to trees in landscape strips where there is not enough area for a bioretention. The depth of the section is deeper than bioretention, so outlet pipe elevations need to be studied to confirm positive drainage to storm drain can be achieved.

San Mateo County: Tree Stormwater Cells Typical Detail
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.

3. Physical Structured Stormwater Control Measures: These measures are not landscape-based and can be placed below hardscape. Examples include media filter vaults and hydrodynamic separators. Similar to treebox media filters, the MS4 Permit restricts use of media filter vaults and hydrodynamic separators to certain special cases. Additional detail is in the MS4 Permit document.

San Mateo County: Media Filter Vault Typical Detail
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1171 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 10 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
Subsurface Infiltration System: An example of a subsurface infiltration system is a gallery as shown in the detail below. It can be located below hardscape and when there is no available landscape for traditional treatment measures.

San Francisco PUC: Green Infrastructure Infiltration Gallery Typical Detail Opportunities
Presence of Storm Drains: Streets with existing storm drain mains are often the most suitable opportunities for implementing green. Since these streets already have existing stormwater infrastructure, integrating green measures can be more feasible and cost-effective. In areas where the soils are conducive to infiltration, storm drain pipes may not be necessary. This will likely be the case for many rural roads within the city of St. Helena.

Streets with identified storm drain deficiencies also present opportunities for green infrastructure. Such measures will slow runoff before it enters the storm drain pipes, leading to incremental improvements in the carrying capacity of existing pipes.

Storm Drain CIPs: If a storm drain CIP is already planned, there is an opportunity to implement green infrastructure or other streetscape improvements following the trenching for the storm drain main replacement.

Streetscape Amenities: Streetscape amenities present opportunities for stormwater management enhancements.

Existing or proposed landscaped areas offer a chance to integrate bio-retention planters, such as rain gardens or swales. Similarly, on-street parking zones are opportune areas for pervious pavement. Pervious pavement allows rainwater to infiltrate through the surface and into underlying soil, minimizing runoff and alleviating stress on storm drain systems.

Soil Types: Figure 3.4 from the Integrated Utility Master Plan shows that much of St. Helena is comprised of soil types which are conducive to infiltration, ideal for green infrastructure treatment and recharging of underground aquifers. With the hydrologic soil types in the city, infiltration-based green infrastructure measures, such as pervious pavement, should be a first consideration in any CIP. (HSG A and B per Figure 3.4).

Constraints:

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1172 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 11 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
Reliance on Infiltration: For streets without existing storm drain infrastructure, all proposed green infrastructure measures will need to be completely infiltration-based. With the absence of storm drain connection points, a subdrain based bio-retention planter or pervious pavement system will not have a means of discharging drainage flows without additional storm drainage infrastructure improvements.

Infiltration-based green infrastructure measures should be located where soil types are conducive to infiltration.

Where infiltration-based green infrastructure measures are proposed, proximity to adjacent improvements, such as building foundations or roadway aggregate base sections, should be considered to prevent damage from infiltration. Examples of infiltration-based treatment measures include self-retaining areas, pervious pavements, and bioretention areas. Assuming soils support infiltration, bioretention and pervious pavement systems can also be installed without a perforated pipe or existing storm drain infrastructure.

Clearances to Existing Utilities: Existing utilities may prevent locating green infrastructure measures directly adjacent to street improvements. Further discussion of required separation between green infrastructure measures and existing utilities is included in the sections that follow. In the event that existing utility locations preclude installation of green infrastructure, opportunities for "in-lieu" treatment areas on City-owned land could be explored to avoid the need to relocate existing utilities.

Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
There is a single wastewater treatment plant located in the city. All sanitary sewer infrastructure is routed to this facility in the eastern corner of the city. The Integrated Utility Master Plan identifies numerous pipelines with projected capacity deficiencies given projected growth through 2040, as shown in figure 6.7.

Existing sanitary sewer lines could pose constrain the use of street trees or green infrastructure. New green infrastructure measures, specifically bio-retention, and street trees must keep clear of existing sanitary sewer lines.

Typical separation distances between street trees and sanitary sewer lines is 5 – 10’, or as determined by City Engineering staff. If a planned sewer CIP is proposed, the new location of sanitary sewer lines should be coordinated to avoid areas suitable for bio-retention planters or street trees. Locations of planned sewer CIPs could be an opportunity to implement a streetscape improvement project following trenching and installation of the new sewer pipe. Funding green infrastructure, alongside planned sewer CIPs, can be supported through creative grants at both the state and federal levels. For example, the Urban Greening Grant Program (CA) and Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Grants fund green infrastructure projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, manage stormwater, and improve water quality. Federally, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) – Green Project Reserve and FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program provide low-interest loans and grants to incorporate green infrastructure in projects.

Domestic Water Infrastructure
There are several pipeline improvement projects recommended to address capacity deficiencies, as shown in Figure

6.9. There are also fire hydrant flow deficiencies that correspond to improvements upsizing smaller 6” water mains to 8”. There are two transmission line improvement projects proposed: Napa Connection and Bell Canyon Reservoir.

Like sanitary sewer, domestic water pipes will be a constraint for locating new green infrastructure. For example, bioretention areas should not be constructed above or around existing water mains. Locations of water service lines should also be avoided when locating bioretention areas. Planned CIP to the domestic water system should be coordinated with proposed streetscape projects.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1173 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 12 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
Dry Utility Infrastructure
Existing electric, gas, and telecommunication lines exist within the city. PG&E has standards for clearances between underground facilities and any wet utility –three feet from outside of electrical or gas trench to outside of the utility.

Bioretention areas are considered wet utilities and need to be designed to accommodate these clearances. The separation requirements are applied to all PG&E underground gas and electrical whether it’s a distribution system or a customer service lateral. If three feet of horizontal separation cannot be attained, a variance may be approved by PG&E. However, all options to locate a proposed bioretention area with standard separation from PG&E facilities should be exhausted prior to pursuing a variance with PG&E. Separations of one foot or less are not allowed.

Select Projects Review
This section presents a high-level review of the opportunities and challenges associated with utilities and stormwater management for specific proposed streetscape projects identified by the City for further evaluation as part of the Streets Master Plan effort including:
• Realignment of Pope Street/Silverado Trail Bridge
• Realignment of Pratt Avenue/Silverado Trail Bridge
• Extension of Adams Street to Silverado Trail
• Extension of Oak Avenue to Grayson Avenue
For additional information, please review Technical Study 2: Select Projects Review alongside the following information.

Pope Realignment at Silverado Trail
There is an existing bridge on Pope Street which crosses the Napa River, just south of the intersection with Silverado Trail. The City is currently considering the construction of a new bridge to accommodate wider lanes for vehicles and convert the existing bridge to a bicycle and pedestrian only crossing. The City’s utility maps show an existing 2” domestic water line that crosses the Napa River at Pope Street. The existing water line can remain in place, or a new one can be installed along the new bridge. This is an opportunity to upsize or replace the water line if the existing pipe is reaching the end of its useful life.

Existing overhead electrical and telecommunications lines are present along the Silverado Trail at Pope Street, in the vicinity of the existing bridge and the area that has been studied for the new vehicular bridge. Some of the overhead lines cross the Napa River adjacent to the bridge. Depending on the exact layout for existing bridge improvements and/or location of a new vehicular bridge, the existing overhead lines may need to be relocated.

Overhead lines may also constrain new bridge construction or existing bridge improvements.

A new bridge would need to provide clearance from the underside of the bridge to the 100-year water surface elevations within Napa Creek, based on the current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The FEMA Flood Insurance Study shows the 100-year flood elevation at approximately 217 for Napa River at Pope Street, so the bridge should be designed with a minimum soffit elevation of 219. Exact elevations for the 100-year water surface elevation would need to be confirmed through more detailed study and final bridge location. The exact freeboard requirement would also need to be confirmed with FEMA.

There are two bridge alignments that are being considered, one north of the existing bridge and one south. As outlined in the HBP Application Packet, the alignment north of the bridge is the city’s preferred alignment. Since the abutments need to be clear of the floodway, the upstream option would need significantly longer spans given the extent of the floodway shown on the FIRM. Silverado Trail is within the floodway upstream of the existing bridge, Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1174 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 13 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
presenting challenges to keep the abutments completely out of the floodway. However, if the new bridge is constructed upstream, there is an opportunity to align Pope Street with the Howell Mountain Road- Silverado Trail intersection. A proposed bridge downstream of the existing bridge can be shorter and locate the intersection with Silverado Trail outside of the floodway.

FIRM Pope Street Bridge Markup
It is assumed stormwater treatment measures would not be able to be located on the bridge structure. Stormwater landing on the bridge would need to be collected and routed off of the bridge for treatment. Please refer to the stormwater toolkit measures for applicable treatment options. Potential treatment locations are noted on the preliminary alignment options below.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1175 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 14 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
Pope Street Bridge Alignment Options: Preferred Option, North of Bridge (left) & South of Bridge (right) Concept Plan HBP Application Packet, 2023
Pratt Realignment at Silverado Trail
The City is also considering a realignment and/or widening of the existing bridge at Pratt Avenue and Silverado Trail to accommodate wider lanes for vehicles as well as other transportation modes such as bicycles and pedestrians.

There is an existing 18” water line that crosses the Napa River at the Pratt Ave bridge, attached to the east side of the existing bridge, as shown in the photos below.

Potential SW Treatment locations
Potential SW
Treatment locations
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1176 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 15 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
Pratt Bridge Looking North
Pratt Bridge Looking Southwest from Silverado Trail
The 2021 Integrated Utility Master Plan includes a proposed CIP (“PWTM-2”) which would replace the existing water line with a new water transmission main. If the Pratt bridge is widened or replaced, the new structure would need to accommodate the existing water line. Additionally, any improvement to the Pratt bridge should consider the proposed water transmission main CIP.

Water Pipeline
Water Pipeline
Gas Pipeline
Overhead
Utility Lines
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1177 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 16 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
There is also a natural gas pipe below the water line, attached to the bridge. This utility would also need to be accommodated or relocated if alongside any bridge improvements.

Existing overhead electrical and telecommunications lines are present along the south side of the Silverado Trail at Pratt Avenue. There are also overhead lines which cross the Napa River adjacent to the bridge. Depending on the location and layout for the bridge improvements, the existing overhead lines may need to be relocated. They may also need to be accommodated during construction of any bridge improvements.

Bridge improvements would also be required to provide clearance from the underside of the bridge to the 100-year water surface elevations within Napa Creek based on the current FEMA maps and Flood Insurance Study. The FEMA Flood Insurance Study shows the 100-year flood elevation at approximately 231 feet for Napa River at Pratt Street, so the bridge should be designed with a minimum soffit elevation of 233 feet. Exact elevations for the 100-year water surface elevation would need to be confirmed through more detailed study. The exact freeboard requirement would also need to be confirmed with FEMA.
2040 General Plan Update: Figure 5.3 Future Roadway Extensions General Plan Roadway Extensions 1 and 4: Starr Avenue and Adams Street Extensions There is currently a draft map prepared for the Hunter Subdivision which proposes to extend Adams Street from its current terminus, approximately 1,000 feet north, to provide access to the proposed subdivision. The tentative map Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1178 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 17 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
proposes extension of storm drain, sanitary sewer, and domestic water within the extension of Adams Street. The existing public right-of-way is proposed to be expanded from 50’ to 60’ width. The street section would include two vehicular travel lanes, parking on both sides, and a sidewalk. North of the Hunter Subdivision on Adams there is an existing 36” storm drain within the existing unpaved road that eventually discharges into a drainage ditch. This existing storm drain can be utilized to incorporate green infrastructure in the new extended Adams Street.

The Starr Avenue extension is part of the Hunter Subdivision project. The proposed 60’ width roadway section is similar to Adams Street with two travel lanes, parking, and sidewalks and landscape strip on both sides. Any trees in the planter strip can utilize interceptor tree credit to reduce the amount of impervious area that needs to be treated.

Per the tentative map, drainage paths and post-construction BMPs have already been planned in the design. The south portion of the Hunter Subdivision project discharges into the existing storm drain system (directly to the Napa River). Drainage will be treated by hydrodynamic separators prior to entering the existing system. The rest of the site will drain into the detention pond with a proposed headwall on the north side of the project. The detention pond will treat the runoff prior to being discharged into the Napa River.

General Plan Roadway Extensions 5A: Extension of Adams Street to Silverado Trail The existing Adams Street right-of-way terminates approximately 1,400 feet north of Main Street (Highway 128). An existing unpaved road branches off Adams Street near its northern terminus and extends north to a point just south of the Napa River. In order to extend Adams Street to Silverado Trail, the existing gravel road would need to be widened and paved. It is expected that stormwater treatment will be required for the new roadway section. This could be accommodated in the form of self-retaining areas if there is adequate space within the right-of-way, or the roadway could drain into a bioretention basin. There is an opportunity to line up Adams Street with Meadowood Lane to create a 4-way intersection with Silverado Trail.

Extending Adams Street to Silverado Trail will require a new bridge over the Napa River. The proposed bridge would need to be constructed to provide clearance from the underside of the bridge to the 100-year water surface elevations within Napa Creek based on the current FEMA maps and Flood Insurance Study.

General Plan Roadway Extensions 3: Extension of Oak to Grayson An extension of Oak Avenue is being considered between Mitchell Drive and Grayson Avenue. The Highway 29 Corridor Specific Plan dated February 2001, shows the street associated work. The overall scope of street improvement is included in the image below. A bridge for pedestrian and bike traffic is proposed over Sulphur Creek with a vehicular roadway proposed from Charter Oak Avenue to Grayson Avenue. The bridge over Sulphur Creek shall be designed to be above the 100-year FEMA flood plain with the abutments outside the creek bank. The Oak Avenue extension would require crossing several existing parcels and acquisition of right-of-way. There are existing overhead electrical lines along the proposed street extension. While green infrastructure was not a requirement when the preliminary plans were prepared, portions of the proposed landscape areas could be utilized to implement green infrastructure, namely bioretention areas. Low points created by vertical curves along the proposed Oak Avenue profile suggest locations for green infrastructure either in the landscape strip or behind the sidewalk. Any BMPs used should be size appropriately for the tributary area draining to it.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1179 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 18 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
Highway 29 Specific Plan, 2001 Drawing Set: Master Roadway Plan The project also proposes a realignment of Mills Lane to match the Grayson Avenue – Highway 29 intersection. The Highway 29 Corridor Specific Plan includes new roadway improvements along Mills Lane from Highway 29 to La Fata Street. The improvements at the La Fata Street and Mills Lane intersection would be an opportunity for the Allison Avenue extension (extension 2C from Figure 3.13). There is a housing project proposed at the corner of Fountain Street and Mills Lane. The Mills Lane realignment project will likely need stormwater treatment under the new Phase II MS4 permit. Treatment facilities can be located in the landscape strip adjacent to the roadway or behind the sidewalk. Any treatment required outside of the roadway should be coordinated with the Fountain Street housing project.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1180 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 19 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
Fountain Street Workforce Housing: Site Plan
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1181 of 1259 ends

November 2024 Page 20 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
Appendix
The following figures have been excerpted from the 2021 City of St. Helena Integrated Utility Master Plan by Carollo Engineers
1) Figure 3.4 Hydrologic Soil Groups
2) Figure 5.8 Existing Storm Drainage System, by Diameter 3) Figure 5.10 Existing Storm Drainage System Drainage Areas 4) Figure 6.8 Existing Storm Drainage System Capacity Deficiencies 5) Figure 6.11 Storm Drainage System Improvements
6) Figure 5.6 Existing Wastewater Collection System
7) Figure 6.7 Existing Wastewater Collection System Capacify Deficiencies 8) Figure 6.10 Wastewater Collection System Improvements 9) Figure 5.4 Existing Water Distribution System by Diameter 10) Figure 6.9 Water Distribution System Improvements
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1182 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1183 of 1259 ends

Charter Oak Ave
College Ave
Conn Valley Rd
Chaix Ln
Dowdell Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Pratt Ave
Madrona Ave
Spring
St
Pinot Way
Adams St
Pope St
Fulton Ln
Lodi Ln
Vallejo St
Main St
Vintage Ave
Park St
Chiles Ave
Meadowood Ln
Kearney St
Stice Ln
Inglewood Ave
Knoll Pl
Crane Ave
Valley View St
Mccorkle Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allyn Ave
Victoria Ln
Sulphur Springs Ave
Starr Ave
Hudson Ave
Camino Vista
Tainter St
Crinella
Dr
Pine
St
Grayson Ave
Oak Ave
Garden Ave
Hillview Pl
V oorhee s
Cir
Bello Ave
Deer Park Rd
White Ln
Scott St
Spring Mountain Rd
Vineyard Ave
Railroad Ave
Brittany Ln
Fawn Park Rd
Hunt Ave
Knoll Pl
W Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock Rd
Tokay Ln
York Ln
Jones Ln
Wheeler Ln
Oakwood Ln
Dean York Ln
Sylvaner Ave
Rockland Dr
Bournemou ht Rd
Fir Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
Lewelling Ln
Silverado Trl
Mills Ln
Taplin Rd
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Galleron Ln
·|}þ128
·|}þ128
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: City of St. Helena,

USGS, ESRI
O
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 03, 2020pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\St Helena\11198A00\Data\GIS\Existing_Land_Use.mxd INTEGRATED UTILITY MASTER PLAN | CITY OF ST. HELENA
Figure 3.4 Hydrologic Soil Groups
Legend
City Limits
Parcels
Hydrologic Soil Type
A
B
C
D
Other
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1184 of 1259 ends

#*
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P!P
!P
!P
!P
!P!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
Library Ln
Main St
Colle ge Ave
Silverado Trl
Hunt Ave
Crane Ave
Chaix Ln
Adams St
Vintage Ave
Madrona Ave
Vineya rd Ave
Pope St
Chiles Av e
Spring St
Sta rr Ave
Valley View St
Hillview Pl
Pinot Way
Birch St
Fulton Ln
Vallejo St
Park St
N Crane Ave
Grays on Ave
Elmhurst Ave
Kea rney St
Rosebud Ln
Ally n Ave
Crinella Dr
Railroad Ave
Hudson Ave
Tainter St
Paulson Ct
Stockton St
Hollis Ln
Grove Ct
Quail Ct
Pine St
Brown St
Com munityDr
Church St
Sylvaner Ave
Del Rio Ct
Edwards St
Duck Hunter Way
Mccormic k St
La Fa ta St
Voorhees Cir
·|}þ128
·|}þ128
17''
18''
24''
6''
18''
24''
24''
18''
10''
36''
24''
12''
15''
42''
18''
42''
30''
15''
18''
48''
15''
30''
24''
10''
12''
16''
30''
36''
18''
12''
24''
60''
18''
12''
24''
24''
36''
48''
24''
36''
54''
24''
18''
12''
18''
15''
42''
21''
12''
24''
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: City of St. Helena,

USGS, ESRI
O
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Last Revised: October 25, 2020pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\St Helena\11198A00\Data\GIS\Existing_Storm_System.mxd INTEGRATED UTILITY MASTER PLAN | CITY OF ST. HELENA
Legend
!P Outfall
#* Storm Basin
Storm Drain by Diameter
14" or Less
15" - 21"
24" - 36"
Greater than 36"
Box Channel
Ditch
Stream or River
Waterbody
City Limits
Parcels
Figure 5.8 Existing Storm Drainage System, by Diameter
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1185 of 1259 ends

#*
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P!P
!P
!P
!P
!P!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
Library Ln
Main St
Colle ge Ave
Silverado Trl
Hunt Ave
Crane Ave
Chaix Ln
Adams St
Vintage Ave
Madrona Ave
Vineya rd Ave
Pope St
Chiles Av e
Spring St
Sta rr Ave
Valley View St
Hillview Pl
Pinot Way
Birch St
Fulton Ln
Vallejo St
Park St
N Crane Ave
Grays on Ave
Elmhurst Ave
Kea rney St
Rosebud Ln
Ally n Ave
Crinella Dr
Railroad Ave
Hudson Ave
Tainter St
Paulson Ct
Stockton St
Hollis Ln
Grove Ct
Quail Ct
Pine St
Brown St
Com munityDr
Church St
Sylvaner Ave
Del Rio Ct
Edwards St
Duck Hunter Way
Mccormic k St
La Fa ta St
Voorhees Cir
·|}þ128
·|}þ128
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: City of St. Helena,

USGS, ESRI
O
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Last Revised: October 25, 2020pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\St Helena\11198A00\Data\GIS\Existing_Storm_System.mxd INTEGRATED UTILITY MASTER PLAN | CITY OF ST. HELENA
Legend
!P Outfall
#* Storm Basin
Storm Drain by Diameter
14" or Less
15" - 21"
24" - 36"
Greater than 36"
Box Channel
Ditch
Storm Basins
Napa River
Sulphur Springs Creek
York Creek
Other
Stream or River
Waterbody
City Limits
Parcels
Figure 5.10 Existing Storm Drainage System Drainage Areas Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1186 of 1259 ends

#*
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P!P
!P
!P
!P
!P!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
Library Ln
Main St
Colle ge Ave
Silverado Trl
Hunt Ave
Crane Ave
Chaix Ln
Adams St
Vintage Ave
Madrona Ave
Vineya rd Ave
Pope St
Chiles Av e
Spring St
Sta rr Ave
Valley View St
Hillview Pl
Pinot Way
Birch St
Fulton Ln
Vallejo St
Park St
N Crane Ave
Grays on Ave
Elmhurst Ave
Kea rney St
Rosebud Ln
Ally n Ave
Crinella Dr
Railroad Ave
Hudson Ave
Tainter St
Paulson Ct
Stockton St
Hollis Ln
Grove Ct
Quail Ct
Pine St
Brown St
Com munityDr
Church St
Sylvaner Ave
Del Rio Ct
Edwards St
Duck Hunter Way
Mccormic k St
La Fa ta St
Voorhees Cir
·|}þ1 82
·|}þ1 82
6 ''
17''
24''
36''
24''
24''
72''
24''
30''
1 8 ''
12''
1 5''
18''
10''
1 8 ''
18''
24''
12''
18''
12''
6''
24''
12'
1 5 ''
18 ''
15''
15''
30''
12''
12''
2 4''
24''
12'' 12''
36''
30''
3 0 ' '
10''
12''
24''
12''
12''
18''
30''
36 ''
18''
48''
42''
42''
42''
16''
18''
15''
1 2''
24''
18''
12''
24''
10''
30''
24''
12''
36''
24''
18''
60''
54''
24''
48''
48''
15''
60''
60''
60''
60''
21''
33''
18''
36''
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: City of St. Helena,

USGS, ESRI
O
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 17, 2020pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\St Helena\11198A00\Data\GIS\St.Helena_Existing_Storm_System.mxd INTEGRATED UTILITY MASTER PLAN | CITY OF ST. HELENA
Legend
Capacity Deficencies
100 Year Improvement
10 Year Improvement
!P Outfall
#* Storm Basin
Storm Drain by Diameter
< 14 inches
14 - 21 inches
24 - 36 inches
> 36 inches
Unknown
Ditch
Stream or River
Waterbody
St. Helena City Limits
Parcels
Figure 6.8 Existing Storm Drainage System Capacity Deficiencies Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1187 of 1259 ends

#*
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P!P
!P
!P
!P
!P!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
Library Ln
Main St
Colle ge Ave
Silverado Trl
Hunt Ave
Crane Ave
Chaix Ln
Adams St
Vintage Ave
Madrona Ave
Vineya rd Ave
Pope St
Chiles Av e
Spring St
Sta rr Ave
Valley View St
Hillview Pl
Pinot Way
Birch St
Fulton Ln
Vallejo St
Park St
N Crane Ave
Grays on Ave
Elmhurst Ave
Kea rney St
Rosebud Ln
Ally n Ave
Crinella Dr
Railroad Ave
Hudson Ave
Tainter St
Paulson Ct
Stockton St
Hollis Ln
Grove Ct
Quail Ct
Pine St
Brown St
Com munityDr
Church St
Sylvaner Ave
Del Rio Ct
Edwards St
Duck Hunter Way
Mccormic k St
La Fa ta St
Voorhees Cir
·|}þ1 82
·|}þ1 82
SD-12, 12''
SD-5F,
30''
SD-9, 15''
SD-3B, 24''
SD-4, 12''
SD-6B, 24''
SD-8,24''
SD-6A,
18''
SD-5A, 30''
SD-5D, 12''
SD-5E, 12''
SD-5B, 36'' SD-5C, 42''
6 ''
17''
24''
36''
24''
24''
72''
24''
30''
1 8 ''
12''
1 5''
18''
10''
18''
24''
12''
18''
12''
6''
24''
12'
1 5 ''
18 ''
15''
15''
30''
12''
12''
2 4''
24''
12'' 12''
36''
3 0 ' '
12''
24''
12''
12''
18''
30''
36 ''
18''
48''
42''
42''
42''
16''
15''
1 2''
24''
18''
12''
24''
10''
30''
24''
12''
36''
24''
18''
60''
54''
24''
48''
48''
15''
60''
60''
60''
60''
21''
33''
18''
36''
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: City of St. Helena,

USGS, ESRI
O
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Last Revised: November 17, 2020pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\St Helena\11198A00\Data\GIS\St.Helena_Existing_Storm_System.mxd INTEGRATED UTILITY MASTER PLAN | CITY OF ST. HELENA
Legend
Storm Drainage Improvemnts
!P Outfall
#* Storm Basin
Storm Drain by Diameter
< 14 inches
14 - 21 inches
24 - 36 inches
> 36 inches
Unknown
Ditch
Stream or River
Waterbody
St. Helena City Limits
Parcels
Figure 6.11 Storm Drainage System Improvements
!P
!P
!P
SD-1E, 18''
SD-2E, 12''
SD-2C, 12''
SD-2D, 15''
SD-1A, 30''
SD-2B, 24''
SD-1B, 36''
SD-2A, 18''
SD-7B, 15''
SD-1D, 12''
SD-1C, 15''
SD-7A, 24''
18''
17''
21''
24''
48''
12''
8''
6''
15''
30''
24''
8''
12''
30''
12''
17''
24''
8''
18''
12''
12''
24''
8''
12''
24''
18''
24''
18''
12''
24''
6''
15''
12''
12''
12''
12''
12''
8''
24''
8''
24''
Inset A
Inset A
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1188 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1189 of 1259 ends

"
=)
"
=)
WWTP
CharterOak Ave
Main St
College AveSilverado Trl
Hunt Ave
Crane Ave
Conn Valley Rd
Chaix Ln
Dowdell Ln
Stice Ln
Mills Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Vintage Ave
Madrona Ave
Vineyard Ave
Pope St
Lodi Ln
Spring Mountain Rd
Spring St
Pratt Ave
E
Bl onita Ave
Inglewood Ave
Valley View St
Pinot Way
Fulton
Ln
Vallejo St
Park St
Deer Park Rd
Meadowood Ln
Hudson Ave
Oak Ave
Knoll Pl
Allyn Ave
Fawn Pa rk Rd
Sulphur Springs Ave
Victoria Ln
Railroad Ave
Tainter St
Stockton St
Hollis Ln
Grayson Ave
Garden Ave
Bello Ave
Howell Mountain Rd
White Ln
Taplin Rd
W Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock R d
Sylvaner Ave
Tokay Ln
Galleron Ln
York Ln
Rossi Rd
JonesLn
W heeler Ln
Lewelling Ln
Fir Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Pl
·|}þ128
·|}þ128
12''
8''
12''
4''
6''
8''
4''
6''
6''
8''
8''
10''
6''
18''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
4''
10''
8''
4''
4''
12''
18''
6''
12''
4''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
4''
8''
6''
15''
6''
6''
8''
6''
8''
6''
6''
8''
6''
6''
10''
4''
6''
6''
24''
8''
4''
6''
8''
10''
6''
8''
12''
21''
6''
6''
8''
6''
8''
10''
6''
6''
8''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
6''
12''
O
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Last Revised: October 26, 2020 Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\St Helena\11198A00\Data\GIS\StHelena_Sewer_System_Connections_Landscape.mxd Legend

WWTP WWTP
"
=) Lift Station
Force Main
Gravity Main
6" or Less
8"
10" or Greater
City Limits
Waterbody
Parcels
Figure 5.6 Existing Wastewater Collection System
Disclaimer: Features shown in
this figure are for planning
purposes and represent
approximate locations.

Engineering and/or
survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: City of St. Helena,

USGS, ESRI
INTEGRATED UTILITY MASTER PLAN | CITY OF ST. HELENA
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1190 of 1259 ends

"
=)
"
=)
"
=)
WWTP
CharterOak Ave
Main St
College AveSilverado Trl
Hunt Ave
Crane Ave
Conn Valley Rd
Chaix Ln
Dowdell Ln
Stice Ln
Mills Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Vintage Ave
Madrona Ave
Vineyard Ave
Pope St
Lodi Ln
Spring Mountain Rd
Spring St
Pratt Ave
E
Bl onita Ave
Inglewood Ave
Valley View St
Pinot Way
Fulton
Ln
Vallejo St
Park St
Deer Park Rd
Meadowood Ln
Hudson Ave
Oak Ave
Knoll Pl
Allyn Ave
Fawn Pa rk Rd
Sulphur Springs Ave
Victoria Ln
Railroad Ave
Tainter St
Stockton St
Hollis Ln
Grayson Ave
Garden Ave
Bello Ave
Howell Mountain Rd
White Ln
Taplin Rd
W Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock R d
Sylvaner Ave
Tokay Ln
Galleron Ln
York Ln
Rossi Rd
JonesLn
W heeler Ln
Lewelling Ln
Fir Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Pl
·|}þ1 82
·|}þ1 82
8 ''
12''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
6''
12''
6''
4''
6''
10''
6''
6''
18''
6''
10'' 8''
8''
8'' 8''
12''
4''
6''
8''
4''
8''
8''
4''
12''
18''
8''
4''
6''
10''
12''
10''
4''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
4''
8''
15''
4''
6''
8''
4''
8''
4''
4''
6''
6''
6''
10''
4''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
24''
4''
8''
8''
12''
6''
10''
8''
8''
8''
8''
12 ''
21''
4''
10''
4''
8''
8''
6''
10''
8''
8''
8''
12''
8''
6''
6''
8''
4''
4''
8''
6''
6''
12''
O
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Last Revised: October 20, 2020 Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\St Helena\11198A00\Data\GIS\StHelena_Sewer_System_Connections_Landscape.mxd Figure 6.7 Existing Wastewater Collection System Capacity Deficiencies Disclaimer: Features shown in
this figure are for planning
purposes and represent
approximate locations.

Engineering and/or
survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: City of St. Helena,

USGS, ESRI
INTEGRATED UTILITY MASTER PLAN | CITY OF ST. HELENA
Legend
Modeld Pipline by Diameter
Junction Deficencies
Pipeline Deficencies
WWTP
Lift Station
Force Main
St. Helena City Limits
Waterbody
Parcels
6 inches and smaller
8 inches
10 inches and larger
Unknown
WWTP
"
=)
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1191 of 1259 ends

"
=)
"
=)
"
=)
WWTP
CharterOak Ave
Main St
College AveSilverado Trl
Hunt Ave
Crane Ave
Conn Valley Rd
Chaix Ln
Dowdell Ln
Stice Ln
Mills Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Vintage Ave
Madrona Ave
Vineyard Ave
Pope St
Lodi Ln
Spring Mountain Rd
Spring St
Pratt Ave
E
Bl onita Ave
Inglewood Ave
Valley View St
Pinot Way
Fulton
Ln
Vallejo St
Park St
Deer Park Rd
Meadowood Ln
Hudson Ave
Oak Ave
Knoll Pl
Allyn Ave
Fawn Pa rk Rd
Sulphur Springs Ave
Victoria Ln
Tainter St
Hollis Ln
Grayson Ave
Garden Ave
Bello Ave
Howell Mountain Rd
White Ln
Taplin Rd
W Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock R d
Sylvaner Ave
Tokay Ln
Galleron Ln
York Ln
Rossi Rd
JonesLn
W heeler Ln
Lewelling Ln
Fir Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Pl
·|}þ1 82
·|}þ1 82
WWGM-8, 8''
WWGM-2, 12''
WWGM-3, 10''
WWGM-10, 8'' WWGM-4, 12''
WWGM-11, 10''
WWGM-12, 8''
WWGM-9, 15''
WWGM-5, 15''
WWGM-1, 10''
WWGM-7, 18''
WWGM-6, 21''
O
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Last Revised: October 20, 2020 Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\St Helena\11198A00\Data\GIS\StHelena_Sewer_System_Connections_Landscape.mxd Figure 6.10 Wastewater Collection System Improvements
Disclaimer: Features shown in
this figure are for planning
purposes and represent
approximate locations.

Engineering and/or
survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: City of St. Helena,

USGS, ESRI
INTEGRATED UTILITY MASTER PLAN | CITY OF ST. HELENA
Legend
Modeld Pipline by Diameter
Capacity Improvement
Projects

WWTP WWTP
"
=) Lift Station
Force Main
St. Helena City Limits
Waterbody
Parcels
6 inches and smaller
8 inches
10 inches and larger
Unknown
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1192 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1193 of 1259 ends

UTUT
UT
UT
!ã
!ã
!ã
")
=
)"
=
")
=
Charter Oak Ave
College Ave
Conn Valley Rd
Chaix Ln
Dowdell Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Pratt Ave
Madrona Ave
Spring
St
Pinot Way
Adams St
Pope St
Fulton Ln
Lodi Ln
Vallejo St
Main St
Vintage Ave
Park St
Chiles Ave
Meadowood Ln
Kearney St
Stice Ln
Inglewood Ave
Knoll Pl
Crane Ave
Valley View St
Mccorkle Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allyn Ave
Victoria Ln
Sulphur Springs Ave
Starr Ave
Hudson Ave
Camino Vista
Tainter St
Crinella
Dr
Pine
St
Grayson Ave
Oak Ave
Garden Ave
Hillview Pl
V oorhee s
Cir
Bello Ave
Deer Park Rd
White Ln
Scott St
Spring Mountain Rd
Vineyard Ave
Railroad Ave
Brittany Ln
Fawn Park Rd
Hunt Ave
Knoll Pl
W Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock Rd
Tokay Ln
York Ln
Jones Ln
Wheeler Ln
Oakwood Ln
Dean York Ln
Sylvaner Ave
Rockland Dr
Bournemou ht Rd
Fir Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
Lewelling Ln
Silverado Trl
Mills Ln
Taplin Rd
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Galleron Ln
·|}þ128
·|}þ128
Meadowwood Tanks
Homes Tanks 14''
6''
8''
10''
24''
4''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
16''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
18''

1.25''
6''
6''
6''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
4''
8''
2''
8''
6''
6''
6''
8''
8''
2''
12''
6''
8''
8''
6''
6''
6''
6''
8''
8''
6''
6''
14''
8''
12''
6''
6''
4''
8''
6''
6''
6''
8''
6''
8''
6''
4''
6''
4''
6''
8''
6''
8''
2''
8''
8''
4''
8''
8''
8''
4''
6''
6''
4''
8''
6''
6''
6''
12''
6''
6''
8''
6''
6''
4''
6''
6''
6''
6''
18''
8''
6''
8''
8''
14''
8''
6''
8''
18''
2''
4''
4''
6''
2''
8''
8''
4''
6''
6''
8''
4''
6''
6''
6''
2''
6''
8''
10''
4''
10''
2''
6''
8''
6''
6''
6''
4''
2''
8''
8''
4''
4''
2''
8''
8''
16''
8''
6''
8''
8''
12''
6''
2''
2''
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: City of St. Helena,

USGS, ESRI
O
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Last Revised: October 25, 2020pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\St Helena\11198A00\Data\GIS\Existing_Water_System.mxd INTEGRATED UTILITY MASTER PLAN | CITY OF ST. HELENA
Legend
")
= Modeled Pump Station
!ã Modeled Wells
UT Modeled Water Tank
Modeled Pipelines by Diameter
< 8"
8"
10" - 16"
> 16"
City Limits
Study Area
Waterbody
Parcels
Figure 5.4 Existing Water Distribution System by Diameter UT
!ã
")")
==
)"
=")=
24''
24''
24''
24''
24''
!ã
")
=12'' )"
=12''
12''
12''
To Napa Connection
Bell Canyon Reservoir Detail
Napa Connection
To Bell Canyon Reservoir
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1194 of 1259 ends

UTUT
UT
UT
!ã
!ã
!ã
")
=
)"
=
")
=
Charter Oak Ave
College Ave
Conn Valley Rd
Chaix Ln
Dowdell Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Pratt Ave
Madrona Ave
Spring
St
Pinot Way
Adams St
Pope St
Fulton Ln
Lodi Ln
Vallejo St
Main St
Vintage Ave
Park St
Chiles Ave
Meadowood Ln
Kearney St
Stice Ln
Inglewood Ave
Knoll Pl
Crane Ave
Valley View St
Mccorkle Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allyn Ave
Victoria Ln
Sulphur Springs Ave
Starr Ave
Hudson Ave
Camino Vista
Tainter St
Crinella
Dr
Pine
St
Grayson Ave
Oak Ave
Garden Ave
Hillview Pl
V oorhee s
Cir
Bello Ave
Deer Park Rd
White Ln
Scott St
Spring Mountain Rd
Vineyard Ave
Brittany Ln
Fawn Park Rd
Hunt Ave
Knoll Pl
W Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock Rd
Tokay Ln
York Ln
Jones Ln
Wheeler Ln
Oakwood Ln
Dean York Ln
Sylvaner Ave
Rockland Dr
Bournemou ht Rd
Fir Hill Dr
Melrose Ln
Lewelling Ln
Silverado Trl
Mills Ln
Taplin Rd
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Galleron Ln
PWFF-11
PWFF-6
PWFF-8
PWFF-9
PWTM-1
PWTM-1
PWTM-2
PWFF-5
PWFF-10 PWFF-7
PWFF-7
PWFF-3
PWFF-4
·|}þ1 82
·|}þ1 82
Meadowwood Tanks
Homes Tanks 14''
6''
8''
10''
24''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
16''
8''
8''
8''
8''
18''

1.25''
6''
6''
6''
8''
6''
6''
8''
4''
8''
6''
6''
6''
8''
8''
12''
8''
8''
6''
6''
6''
6''
8''
8''
6''
6''
14''
8''
12''
6''
6''
4''
8''
6''
6''
6''
8''
6''
8''
6''
4''
6''
4''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
4''
8''
8''
8''
4''
6''
6''
4''
8''
6''
6''
6''
12''
6''
6''
8''
6''
6''
4''
6''
6''
6''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
14''
8''
6''
8''
18''
2''
4''
6''
2''
8''
8''
4''
6''
6''
8''
4''
6''
6''
6''
2''
6''
8''
10''
4''
10''
2''
6''
8''
6''
4''
2''
8''
8''
4''
4''
2''
8''
8''
16''
8''
6''
8''
8''
12''
6''
2''
2''
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.

Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.

Data Sources: City of St. Helena,

USGS, ESRI
O
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Last Revised: December 14, 2020pw:\\IO-PW-INT.Carollo.local:Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\St Helena\11198A00\Data\GIS\Existing_Water_System.mxd INTEGRATED UTILITY MASTER PLAN | CITY OF ST. HELENA
Legend
")
= Modeled Pump Station
!ã Modeled Wells
UT Modeled Water Tank
Modeled Pipelines by Diameter
< 8"
8"
10" - 16"
> 16"
City Limits
Study Area
Waterbody
Parcels
Figure 6.9 Water Distribution System Improvements
UT
!ã
")")
==
)"
=")=
PWTM-2
24''
24''
24''
24''
24''
!ã
")
=)"
=
PWTM-1
12''
12''
To Napa Connection
Bell Canyon Reservoir Detail
Napa Connection
To Bell Canyon Reservoir
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1195 of 1259 ends

St Helena Streets Master Plan
Appendix H
Funding Strategies Memo
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1196 of 1259 ends

Memorandum
To: Anjulie Palta, Toole Design Group and Joe Leach, City of St. Helena From: Jason Moody and Rosanna Ren, Economic & Planning Systems Subject: Financing Plan for City of St. Helena Streets Master Plan EPS #231109
Date: March 18, 2026
Dear Anjulie and Joe,
Attached please find EPS’ financing plan and strategy for the St. Helena Streets Master Plan.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1197 of 1259 ends

Financing Plan for City of St. Helena Streets Master Plan

Page 2 ends

Financing Options and Strategy
This memorandum describes potential funding tools and resources that the City may seek to support public and private sector investment in the Streets Master Plan (SMP). Given the scope of the types of infrastructure and their associated costs, it is likely that a combination of financing strategies will be necessary to deliver these projects.

Summary of Improvement Costs
Table 1 summarizes the total costs of the recommended SMP improvements across three categories. The range of proposed street infrastructure improvements that can be organized into three major infrastructure categories: Bikeways, Pedestrian Intersections, and Roadway Extensions/Bridges. In total, these costs range from $33 million to $62 million for bikeways (presented in 2026 dollars), $1 million for pedestrian intersection improvements (2026 dollars), and $112 million for key roadway extension projects (2025 dollars. Costs include soft costs (engineering, permitting, and project management) and contingency.

Table 1 Total Costs for Recommended Streets Master Plan Improvements Infrastructure Category Description Estimated Cost Total Cost1 Bikeways1,2
* Class II Bike Lanes
* Class III Bike Boulevards
* Class III Rural Bike Routes
* Class I Shared-Use Paths
Varies by facility type, ranging from
$300,000 to $7,220,000 per mile $33,373,800 (low) to
$61,850,000 (high)
Pedestrian Intersection
Improvements1,3
* High-visibility crosswalks
* Signage
* Curb ramp upgrades for ADA compliance
* Curb extensions (could include green infrastructure)
* RRFBs (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon)
Varies by location, ranging from $3,000 to
$22,000
$1,058,900
Roadway Extensions and
Bridges4, 5
- Adams Street Extension
- Oak Avenue Extension
* All extensions will require full roadway construction * All extensions are through greenfield, except for the Oak Street extension
* Two new vehicular bridges are proposed over the
Napa River at Pratt Avenue and Pope Street: (1) Bridge
over the Napa River to Silverado Trail; (2) New bridge
over Sulphur Creek
- Adams St Extension to Silverado Trail:
$59,140,117
- Oak Ave Extension to Grayson Ave:
$52,594,353
• Mitchell Dr to Charter Oak Ave:
$37,211,724
• Charter Oak Ave to Grayson Ave:
$15,382,629
$111,734,470
[1] Presented in 2026 dollars.
[2] Includes 35% soft costs and 35% contingency.
[3] Includes 20% contingency.
[4] Includes 35% soft costs and 35% contingency.
[5] Presented in 2025 dollars.

Source: Toole Design
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1198 of 1259 ends

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Page 3 ends

Overview of Financing Mechanisms and Funding Sources
This section provides an overview of potential financing mechanisms and funding sources that the City may use for the proposed projects in the Streets Master Plan. The proposed street infrastructure improvements are described below in Table 2 with the types of sources that may be used to fund these projects. Each resource varies by establishment process, cost burdens, and feasibility and should be considered against the cost and scope of the projects.

Table 2 Matrix of Funding Sources and Proposed Projects The City’s current 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies planned streets and roadway projects through 2030, with a total cost of $21,445,000. This includes several of improvements identified in the Streets Master Plan. Figure 1 shows the funding sources that have been designated for these capital improvements.

Bikeways
Pedestrian
Intersections
Roadways and
Bridges
Measure U Sales Tax Yes X X X
Transportation Impact Fee Yes X X X
Parks Impact Fee Yes X X
External Grants & Funding Yes X X X
Community Facilities District No X X
Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing District No X X X
Community Fundraising &
Private Contributions Yes X X
Development Dedications /
Contributions * Yes X X X
Regulatory Requirements for
Right-of-Way Improvements Yes X X X
General Fund Yes X X X
* Often formalized in Development Agreement or Community Benefits Agreement policies.

Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Most Applicable Project Types
Funding Source Existing in St. Helena
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1199 of 1259 ends

Financing Plan for City of St. Helena Streets Master Plan

Page 4 ends

Figure 1 FY 2025-2030 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan Funding Sources for Streets Source: City of St. Helena
Description of Funding Tools and Sources
This section provides a more detailed description of the funding tools and resources that should be considered to fund the proposed Streets Master Plan facilities and improvements.

General Fund
The City’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan budget reflects funding from myriad sources, including the General Fund. The CIP is approved by City Council and published with the Adopted Budget. CIP projects are recommended based on approved budgets, policies, guidelines, public safety and/or economic development urgency, approved master plans, and external regulatory agencies.

To successfully implement the Streets Master Plan it will be important to seek to include identified projects in the City’s CIP at the appropriate time. Inclusion in the CIP is a signal that the improvements are a community priority. For Streets projects in the 5-Year CIP, the General Fund supplies $4.4 million in funding, or 21 percent of total funds.

Measure U
Measure U is a countywide half-cent sales tax to fund streets and roadway improvements throughout Napa County. The tax, which was passed by voters in November 2024, replaces Measure T, a previous half-cent sales tax for transportation Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1200 of 1259 ends

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Page 5 ends

that was scheduled to sunset. Measure U expands the eligible types of projects that may receive funding and allows for bonding to fund costlier projects.

The measure is administered by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, which has a set of regional capital improvement projects that will be funded by Measure U. However, jurisdictions will also receive funding distributions from the measure. St. Helena is projected to receive $73,533,000 under the 30-year lifetime of Measure U, or 7 percent of the total distribution. In other words, this source is expected to generate 40 to 50 percent of the Streets Master Plan improvement costs over its lifetime, recognizing that other City transportation projects may also be eligible. The distribution is based on each jurisdiction’s proportionate sales tax generation. This is a 21 percent increase in the estimated total funding available from Measure T.

As a condition of receiving Measure T/U funds, the City commits a match of 7 percent, which comes from their General Fund. This funding is committed to constructing Class I bike facilities identified in the Countywide Bicycle Master Plan. Projects in the Countywide Bicycle Master Plan are included under the Bikeways category of the SMP.

Under Measure U’s ordinance language, the funds must be used for maintenance, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of local streets, roads, and infrastructure within the public right-of-way. However, up to 5 percent of the allocations may also be used for projects outside of maintenance, including new road extensions. This makes most projects in the SMP eligible for the funding.

Using the prior Measure T funding, St. Helena had funded approximately 40 local streets and roads projects with costs ranging from $18,000 to $1.2 million. In the CIP, most streets projects use some amount of Measure T or U funding. The current 5-Year CIP anticipates around $12.6 million in Measure T and U distributions to fund planned improvements, making it the largest funding source for streets.

Development Impact Fees
Development impact fees are a one-time fee applied to new development to cover the proportional share of expanding public infrastructure and facilities to mitigate the impacts of new development. The current St. Helena impact fee categories are listed below:
• Public Safety
• Civic Improvement
• Parks
• Water
• Sewer
• Storm Drainage
• Traffic
• Housing Impact
While fee levels are automatically adjusted for inflation annually, new or updated fees require completing and adopting a nexus study. St. Helena last revised its impact fees in 2023.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1201 of 1259 ends

Financing Plan for City of St. Helena Streets Master Plan

Page 2 ends

Development impact fees can be advantageous in that they do not require voter approval to be applied. However, it is less suitable for infrastructure projects with high upfront costs, as fee revenue is collected as development occurs. Furthermore, revenue from this source would be limited if development activity in St. Helena slows. Table 3 describes several advantages and disadvantages.

For the infrastructure discussed in the Streets Master Plan, two types of impact fees are most applicable: the Traffic Impact Fee and the Parks Impact Fee.

Table 3 Development Impact Fee Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
• Nexus-based fee on developers to
pay their “fair share” for
infrastructure
• Establishes a “pay-as-you-go”
approach
• Can be set up to reimburse
developers for “oversizing”
infrastructure
• No voter approval required
• No on-going tax burden
• Typically does not provide full funding for
infrastructure when needed
• “Bridge” funding measures required to fund
infrastructure needed prior to development
(water, sewer)
• Reimbursements may take years for other new
developments to pay fees
• Requires an updated “nexus study” and City
Council approval
• Dependent on development activity
• Adds additional cost burden on development
Traffic Impact Fees
St. Helena’s Traffic Impact Fees are charged on most types of development to mitigate the impact of new growth on the City’s transportation infrastructure and facilities. Fees accrue to the City’s Traffic Mitigation Impact Fund (Fund 740). Per the December 9, 2025 City Council report, this fund currently has a $2.95 million balance.

In the CIP, traffic impact fees will fund several pedestrian and safety improvements, with $857,000 in planned spending from this revenue source. The fee as currently structured may also be used for bikeway and roadway improvements described the SMP as well as several road extensions.

Parks Impact Fees
For the Park Impact Fee, as of 2025, St. Helena charges $3.89 per square foot for all residential developments and conversions. The proceeds go to the City’s Park Impact Fund (Fund 734). Per the Council report cited above, the fund has $974,860 in balance and collects around $25,000 per year. In the Streets Master Plan, this source is primarily applicable to trails, bike paths, and shared-use paths that are part of the parks system.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1202 of 1259 ends

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Page 3 ends

This may include some of the Bikeways and Pedestrian Intersections described in the Plan.

Community Facilities District
Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) are a special tax district to finance public infrastructure or services, which can include (but is not limited to) streetscape and related transportation improvements. Other infrastructure (stormwater systems, beautification or landscaping) can also be funded in this way, or the CFD may be used to pay debt service on issued bonds. Revenue is collected on a property assessment of property owners within the district. The revenues and spending for these districts appear in separate funds in the budget and funding is only spent within those districts and not available citywide.

CFDs are advantageous in that their revenue is levied in addition to the base 1 percent property tax and are therefore not tied to the City’s share of General Fund revenues.

However, some tradeoffs, such as the tax burden on the property owners and the impacts on development feasibility, should also be considered in whether a vote to create a CFD is likely to pass. In areas where multiple or costly complete streets improvements are planned, a CFD may be beneficial to bridge feasibility gaps in funding. The advantages and disadvantages of CFDs are discussed in Table 4.

St. Helena does not currently have any CFDs. To establish a CFD, a two-thirds approval vote of affected property owners is required, as described in the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. The formal process involves proposing the CFD boundaries and policies, adopting a Rate and Method of Apportionment, holding a public hearing, adopting a resolution of formation, and taking a vote.

Table 4 Community Facilities District Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
• Structured and approved by residents or
property owners
• Provides a secure source of tax-exempt
funding for public infrastructure
• Can be used to fund/reimburse costs of initial
infrastructure improvements
• Can fund debt service for bond issuances or
used on a “pay-as-you-go” basis
• Does not impact City General Fund
• Requires 2/3rd approval by affected voters or
property owners (by acreage)
• Adds additional tax burden to property
owners
• Can only be used for publicly owned
infrastructure
• Exposure to developer for initial payment of
the special assessments/taxes
• Requires costs to be advanced for formation
and bond sale
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1203 of 1259 ends

Financing Plan for City of St. Helena Streets Master Plan

Page 4 ends

Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
EIFDs are a mechanism of tax-increment financing for local public entities in California that have replaced role of Redevelopment Agencies that were eliminated in 2012. Local agencies may establish an EIFD for a given project or geographic area to capture incremental increases in property tax revenue from increased assessed value (due to new development and/or generalized appreciation). In the absence of the EIFD, this revenue would accrue to the City’s General Fund (or other property-taxing entity revenue fund).

EIFD funds can be used for project-related infrastructure, including streets and roads, but also utilities, parks, and housing. Unlike prior TIF/Redevelopment law in California, EIFDs require separate approval from all participating jurisdictions (e.g., County Board of Supervisors, special districts, etc.).

Revenues generated by an EIFD may be used to provide funding and financing for a broad range of infrastructure projects. Capital improvements do not have to be located within the boundaries of the district but must have a connection to the district.

St. Helena does not currently have any formed EIFDs, although it has been previously considered to enhance the downtown area. The establishment of an EIFD requires approval by every local taxing entity that will contribute to its property tax increment. To establish an EIFD, a Public Financing Authority (PFA) overseeing the activities and finances of the EIFD must prepare an Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP), which is publicly shared, including at two public hearings for review and approval. Table 5 below demonstrates these advantages and disadvantages.

Table 5 Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
• Does not impose a new tax on properties
• Allows for the use of property tax increment
to fund infrastructure without increasing
overall tax burden for property owners
• Can be leveraged to secure bond revenue
through the issuance of debt
• Geographic boundaries can be flexible and
non-contiguous
• EIFDs requires 55% approval by owners or
residents within district to issue debt
• Must negotiate with all local taxing
jurisdictions that will relinquish their tax
increment
• Relatively small amounts of revenue
available during early development
• Larger district boundary required for
significant revenue benefit
• May re-allocate revenues from public
agencies for critical services funding (e.g.,
City, police, fire)
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1204 of 1259 ends

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Page 5 ends

Developer Contributions
The City may seek to require some developers, as a condition of approval, to make or fund necessary improvements for street frontage and utilities adjacent to and serving their projects. Additionally, developers may elect to provide dedications or one-time payments for other project infrastructure requirements, improvements, or mitigations in lieu of participating in one or several of the financing mechanisms identified herein. For example, developers may want to “buy their way out” of required participation in an area CFD. Cities often formalize the terms and conditions associated with such dedications or contributions in a negotiated Development Agreement (DA) approved by the City Council. To the extent that developers overbuild such improvements (e.g., for economies of scale or to facilitate a continuous street design) an area-wide reimbursement mechanism could be implemented.

Requiring developers to make desired infrastructure improvements or community benefit contributions on a project-by-project basis is usually most applicable for very large projects that involve discretionary approvals (e.g., because they do not conform with existing zoning). For example, in the current CIP, the DA for Long Meadow Ranch (LMR) indicates that LMR is to complete several necessary storm drain improvements, to be partially reimbursed by the City. Several pedestrian crossing improvements, for which the City will cost-share with the developer, are also included as a condition of approval for the LMR development.

Table 6 below shows the advantages and disadvantages.

Table 6 Developer Contributions Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
• Can be approved by City Council (voter
approval not necessary)
• Does not impose new tax on residents /
businesses
• Supports “value capture” and leverages public
sectors land use authority
• Allows for flexibility in use of funds with a
wide range of potential investments and
programs
• Pre-empts existing local planning and other
regulations
• Requires time and resources to execute,
especially amongst multiple landowners
• Imposes economic burden on private
developer
• Most appropriate for discrete, one-time
investments
• Developer project delays may slow down
supplying the infrastructure
Regulatory Requirements for Public Right-of-Way
Developers are often required to construct or improve the sidewalk and roads required to directly access their project, in adherence with the development and design regulations from the City and other public agencies such as CalTrans. This can also apply Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1205 of 1259 ends

Financing Plan for City of St. Helena Streets Master Plan

Page 6 ends

to infill development on major roads or existing streets serving citywide traffic where improvements may be needed to ensure thorough site circulation and access.

The St. Helena Municipal Code has several sections that guide the construction and maintenance of right-of-way improvements, including the duty of property owners to repair adjoining sidewalks (St. Helena Municipal Code Section 12.08.010) and rights-ofway (12.08.150), dedication requirements of streets or transit facilities (16.28.010), and design standards to ensure thorough circulation of streets (16.32.060). There may be opportunities to update these requirements to better align with the Streets Master Plan, especially in certain locations and types of projects.

External Grants
Regional, state, and federal funding sources may supply one-time or ongoing grants towards improvements like those identified in the Streets Master Plan. Grants are a beneficial tool to fund projects because they do not impact City budgets or owner/developer cost burdens. However, they require staff time and effort to evaluate suitable grant opportunities, track and submit applications, manage funding, and complete any reporting requirements. Other considerations also include the availability of program funding over time and whether the projects in the Streets Master Plan are eligible.

The current CIP identifies several grants for street improvements from a variety of funders, including:
• One Bay Area Grant (OBAG): The City plans to use $603,000 in OBAG funds for downtown sidewalk improvements. OBAG is a grant of federal transportation funding that is administered and distributed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
• Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA 3): Distributions from MTC’s TDA 3 program, which allocates funds to counties for bicycle and pedestrian projects. In the CIP, $50,000 in TDA 3 funding is designated for crosswalk improvements on Main Street/Highway 29.
• Priority Legislative Budget Projects (PLBP): CalTrans issues State funding for projects authorized by state legislation. Under AB 102 (2023), St. Helena received $500,000 for pedestrian safety improvements for the Spring Street/Highway 29 intersection.

In addition to these, projects in the SMP may qualify for other funding sources organized by state or federal agencies.
• Active Transportation Program (ATP): CalTrans administers the Active Transportation Program, which consolidates funding from state and federal transportation programs. Eligible projects include those that encourage increasing the proportion of trips by biking and walking, while increasing safety and mobility for non-motorized users.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1206 of 1259 ends

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Page 7 ends

• Strategic Growth Council Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC): The Strategic Growth Council (SGC) funds land use, housing, transportation, and land use preservation projects that support infill development and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

See Appendix A for an expanded list of potential funding programs for streets and transportation infrastructure.

Community Fundraising and Private Donations
Community contributions and fundraising may provide another funding source to consider for some street improvements. This strategy is less likely to fund basic infrastructure improvements but could be a resource to support more visible community features such as park benches or trail segments, with recognition given to the benefactors (e.g., naming rights on trails or plaques).

An example of this is the public fundraising effort organized by the St. Helena Little League to repair grandstands and dugouts at local park fields. The SHLL received contributions from local businesses, philanthropists, and individuals, with top donors listed on a plaque in the renovated stand. While it may not be appropriate for every type of infrastructure, some creativity and organizational willpower by interested parties may make such campaigns effective.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1207 of 1259 ends

Appendix A: Transportation Grant
Opportunities
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1208 of 1259 ends

Funding Source
Name Applicability Justification
Active Source? (as of Dec 2025)
Administrator Geographical Level Description of Funding Funding Application Eligibility Applicant Lead Timeline Active Transportation Program (ATP)
High
Funds pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, planning, and safety education.

Yes CalTrans State and Regional/Other
Created by SB 99 to boost active transportation. Over 85% of funds support disadvantaged communities. Local funding administered via MTC. • Local, regional, or state agencies• Transit agencies or Caltrans nominees• Partnerships must show documentation• Projects must meet ATP goals (infra, plans, quickbuild, non-infra)• Minimum request: $250,000• Aligns with Justice40 (40% of federal funds benefit DACs) Local, Regional, or State Agencies
Cycle 8: Opened August 2025; application submittal in June 2026 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) High
Large-scale federal support for roadway safety aligned with Vision Zero and Complete Streets.

No USDOT Federal
Grants for planning and implementing roadway safety improvements. Supports Action Plans, design, demonstration projects, and implementation of safety strategies. • Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)• Cities/townships• Counties• Tribes• School districts• Public/state higher education institutions• Special district governments• Multijurisdictional groups of the above MPOs, local and regional governments, tribal entities, education institutions FY 2026 Notice of Funding Opportunity forthcoming.

Transportation Development Act 3 High
Focused on bicycle and pedestrian projects, with an emphasis on Quick Build projects Yes
Napa Valley Transportation Authority
Regional/Other
Construction or engineering of bicycle or pedestrian capital project; capital purchases for mainteining Class I or Class IV facilities; Enhancement of Class II bicycle lanes; bicycle safety educatio programs; bicycle or pedestiran facilities plan; Quick Build projects • Napa County jurisdictions Local jurisdictions Recent call for projects closed July 2025 One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 4) High
Broad federal transportation funding aligned with local plans, equity, and climate. Strong tie-in with Complete Streets.

Yes MTC Regional/Other
Distributes FHWA funding to projects that improve safety, reduce emissions, support housing, and enhance multimodal and equity outcomes. Includes support for Complete Streets, transit ridership, and open space access.

Jurisdictions must:• Have certified Housing Element• Comply with State Housing Law• Maintain a Local Roadway Safety Plan• Update a certified Pavement Management Program biennially• Participate in statewide streets/roads needs survey• Provide traffic counts to MTC• Comply with MTC’s Complete Streets policy• Submit Complete Streets Checklists• Follow regional Project Delivery requirements County Transportation Agencies
OBAG 4 call for projects expected 2026.

Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Medium
Supports safety infrastructure like signals and roundabouts that contribute to Complete Streets.

Yes CalTrans State
Infrastructure projects to reduce vehicle crashes based on nationally recognized crash reduction factors. Must be consistent with CA’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). • Must identify a specific safety problem• Proposed countermeasures must substantially address the issue• Projects must lead to construction of safety improvements• Eligible for any public road, pedestrian/bike path, or tribal lands open to the public Local governments or tribal entities with federal-aid highway fund responsibility Varies by cycle

Page 1209 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Funding Source
Name Applicability Justification
Active Source? (as of Dec 2025)
Administrator Geographical Level Description of Funding Funding Application Eligibility Applicant Lead Timeline State Office of Traffic Safety Grant (OTS)
Medium
Supports education and enforcement aligned with roadway safety goals; complements Complete Streets but not infrastructure.

Yes CA Office of Traffic Safety State
Grants for high-visibility traffic enforcement and public education in NHTSA priority areas. Must be supported by local crash data. • Local governments• Nonprofits (501(c)(3)) must have a public agency grant host• Must address NHTSA priorities:– Impaired/Distracted Driving– EMS, Motorcycle Safety, Occupant Protection– Pedestrian & Bike Safety, Roadway Safety, Communications Local governments or nonprofits with public sponsors
FY 2027 cycle opened Dec 2025 and closes Jan 31, 2026
Transformative Climate Communities (TCC)
Medium
Funds GHGreducing infrastructure, planning, and antidisplacement efforts with overlap in pedestrian and transit areas.

Yes CA Strategic Growth Council State
Funds multi-benefit, community-led infrastructure projects in Disadvantaged Communities with major climate, health, and equity outcomes. • Community-based organizations• Local governments• Nonprofits, faith-based orgs• Philanthropic orgs• JPAs, CDFIs, CDCs• Tribes and tribal partnerships• Coalitions and associations of nonprofits Local governments, CBOs, multisector coalitions
FY 2026 round expected Spring 2026, pending state budget State/Regional Transportation Improvement Program (STIP/RTIP) Medium
Primarily for highway and rail projects, but can support local road and safety upgrades with strategic planning.

Yes
California Transportation Commission
State and Regional/Other
Allocates funds on a five-year cycle for state highways, intercity rail, and regional transit. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements may be eligible if aligned with broader goals. • Local or regional governments• Must support eligible facility types (e.g., rail, active transportation)• Projects evaluated on VMT impact, intermodal shifts, public health, safety, community engagement, emergency preparedness, GHG and equity outcomes• Projects may leverage SHOPP or other funds Local or regional governments
Biennial cycle; current cycle active
Community Traffic Safety Grants Medium
Supports local safety education and enforcement; limited infrastructure funding for redesigns.

Yes Road to Zero Coalition Regional/Other Grants focused on reducing roadway fatalities through tools, education, and pilot projects. • Must be a Road to Zero Coalition member • Nonprofits • Local government agencies Nonprofit or local government entities Annual; varies by cycle Lifeline Transportation Program (Bay Area)
Medium
Funds mobility and access projects in Equity Priority Communities; transit-focused with some walk/bike overlap.

No MTC Regional/Other
Supports transit service, pedestrian/bike access, community shuttles, auto loan programs, and means-based fare pilots. • Must serve an Equity Priority Community• Must address needs from community-based transportation plans or other local planning in lowincome neighborhoods• Transit operator or sponsor required Bay Area transit operators
Aligned with MTC’s funding cycles
AARP Community Challenge Low
Provides quickaction grants for small-scale walkability and public realm improvements, often through tactical urbanism.

Yes AARP Regional/Other
Small grants for permanent or temporary projects improving public space, engagement, and age-friendly design. • 501(c)(3), (4), or (6) nonprofits• Government entities (any level)• Other org types considered case-by-case Nonprofits or government agencies
FY 2025 round closed March 5, 2025; expected to return 2026

Page 1210 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Funding Source
Name Applicability Justification
Active Source? (as of Dec 2025)
Administrator Geographical Level Description of Funding Funding Application Eligibility Applicant Lead Timeline Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) Low
Technical support for pavement and asset management in Bay Area jurisdictions.

Yes (call for projects annually)
MTC Regional/Other
Provides federal funds for data collection, pavement condition reporting, and pilot asset management tools. • Bay Area cities and counties• Eligible activities include:– Pavement condition data collection– Pavement management system support– Pilot studies for storm drains, signals, signage, etc.

Bay Area local governments
Annual; call for projects typically in Spring
Community Sparks Program Low
Supports placemaking and bike-friendly quickbuilds; ideal for smaller-scale, community-led interventions.

Yes League of American Bicyclists Regional/Other $2,000 microgrants for tactical urbanism, placemaking, and bike education/planning. • Based in the U.S.• 501(c)(3), (4), or (6) nonprofit• Public or government agency/organization• Must complete the project by end of calendar year Nonprofit or public entities
Annual; applications open early each year
Smart Cities Collaborative – Year Three
Low
Not a grant; provides peer exchange and technical assistance on mobility/curb management innovation.

No Transportation for America Regional/Other Offers workshops and peer learning for cities on curb and mobility strategies. • U.S.-based city government • Program currently limited to selected cities (e.g., SF, LA, Portland, West Sac, DC, etc.) City governments (by invite/selection) Current cohort underway AARP Community Challenge Low
Funds tactical urbanism and walkability/public realm improvements with an age-friendly and DEI lens.

Yes AARP Regional/Other
Small, quick-turnaround grants for public space, placemaking, and agefriendly community improvements. • 501(c)(3), (4), or (6) nonprofits• Government entities• Other orgs considered case-by-case Nonprofit or government entities
Annual; typically spring cycle
FTA 5310 (Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities) Low
Primarily funds senior and disabled transit; some overlap with Complete Streets via access improvements.

Yes CalTrans Federal
Funds ADA-accessible vehicles, mobility management programs, and operations to improve senior/disabled access. • Private nonprofits (all projects)• Public agencies (if no nonprofits available)• CTSA-approved public agencies (Capital/Mobility Mgmt)• Public agencies (for Operating and Mobility Mgmt projects) Nonprofit, state/local government, or tribal entities
Varies by MPO; CalTrans cycle posted annually
Outride Fund Low
Bike education and wellness-oriented youth programs; not intended for infrastructure delivery.

Yes (reopens Fall 2025)
Outride Fund Regional/Other
Matching grant of up to $15,000 for bike education, trail development, and youth wellness projects. • Based in the U.S.• 501(c)(3), (4), or (6) nonprofit• Public or government agency/organization Nonprofits or government entities
Riding for Focus Program grant application open through February 2026 Last Updated: December 2025
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1211 of 1259 ends

St Helena
Streets
Master Plan
Council Meeting
Plan Adoption
March 24, 2026
Joseph Leach, PE
Assistant City Manager
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Anjulie Palta | Toole Design
Ian Barnes, PE | Fehr & Peers Page 1212 of 1259
Agenda Item #13.1.

AGENDA
2 • Project Overview + Final Plan Structure
• Public Comments
• Key Plan Components
• Funding and Implementation
• Next Steps

Page 1213 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Project Overview +
Final Plan Structure

Page 1214 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN

PROJECT AREA
4 • City-Wide Initiative
• Excludes DSP Area
City of St. Helena
Downtown Specific Plan Boundary

Page 1215 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN

PURPOSE
• Bring together transportation recommendations from multiple plans, reports, studies into one coordinated framework
• Improve safety and mobility for all users
• Expand walking and biking connections citywide
• Support emergency access and evacuation routes
• Guide future transportation investments

Page 1216 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN

PROCESS
Spring – Summer 2024 Fall – Winter 2024 Winter - Spring 2025 Summer - Fall 2025 Fall - Spring 2026

Page 1217 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN

PROCESS
Spring – Summer 2024 Fall – Winter 2024 Winter - Spring 2025 Summer - Fall 2025 Fall - Spring 2026

Page 1218 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN

PROCESS
Spring – Summer 2024 Fall – Winter 2024 Winter - Spring 2025 Summer - Fall 2025 Fall - Spring 2026 Requested Council (12/2024)
feedback on:
• Network-wide proposed projects
• Project prioritization

Page 1219 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
Appendices
• Cost Opinions
• Streetscape Toolkits
• Prioritization Methodology Memo and Full Scoring
• Community Engagement Summary Memo
• Synchro Analysis Memo
• Stormwater and Utilities Technical Study
• Project Overview
• Existing Conditions
• Engagement Summary
• Network-Wide Recommendations
• Implementation Plan
• Key Projects

FINAL PLAN STRUCTURE

Page 1220 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Public Comments

Page 1221 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
• Open January 22nd – February 16th
• Advertised through
• City Newsletter
• City homepage
• Public Works homepage
• Streets Master Plan page
• City social media channels
• 68 Comments total
• 46 comments (~68%) were submitted
by one individual
• All others submitted between
1–6 comments

REVIEW PERIOD

Page 1222 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
Themes + Key Comments:
• Bike Network and facility selection (Class I / II / III) • Interest in daylighting enforcement
• Requests for bulb-outs and curb extensions at key intersections • Sidewalk condition and ADA surfaces
• Class I and II project costs
• Concern about parking loss along Spring Street

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Page 1223 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
• Bike Network and facility selection (Class I / II / III) Facility types were retained based on roadway context, speed, functional classification, and NVTA coordination, apart from Madrona Avenue, which was updated from a Class II to a Class III bike facility following ATSC recommendations.
• Interest in daylighting enforcement
Plan updated to reference AB 413 and include a systemwide recommendation for red curb daylighting at intersections.
• Requests for bulb-outs and curb extensions at key intersections Plan updated to recommend bulb-outs at Hillview near the middle school entrance and at Hillview at Kearney. • Sidewalk condition and ADA surfaces
Plan added language acknowledging sidewalk maintenance needs; tactile surface design remains governed by ADA standards.
• Class I and II low end project costs
Low-end cost estimates were updated to address inconsistencies. • Concern about parking loss along Spring Street
No changes to proposed; curb extensions reflect compliance with AB 413 where parking is already restricted.

ACTION TAKEN

Page 1224 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Key Plan Components

Page 1225 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
Appendices
• Cost Opinions
• Streetscape Toolkits
• Prioritization Methodology Memo and Full Scoring
• Community Engagement Summary Memo
• Synchro Analysis Memo
• Stormwater and Utilities Technical Study
• Project Overview
• Existing Conditions
• Engagement Summary
• Network-Wide Recommendations
• Implementation Plan
• Key Projects

FINAL PLAN STRUCTURE
Cv

Page 1226 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN

NETWORK-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
• The Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan, 2019
• St. Helena General Plan Update 2040 (Street Extension Projects), 2019 • Active Transportation + SRTS Plan, 2021
• Safe Routes Napa County Walk Audit Reports, 2019
• ADA Transition Plan , 2017
• St. Helena Pedestrian Plan (Part of Napa County Master Plan), 2016 • City-Identified Bridge Realignment Projects
• Project Team-Identified Intersection Improvement Projects • NVTA Vision Zero Plan, 2023

Page 1227 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN

NETWORK-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
• 46 Bikeway Projects
• 39 Crossing Improvements (i.e. Ped/Bike)
• 9 Roadway Extension and Bridge Projects
• Includes 2 bridge replacements
• Includes 7 roadway extensions, 3 w/ new bridges

Page 1228 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN

PRIORITIZATION

COMMUNITY SUPPORT
+
ACCESS
+
SAFETY
+

CONNECTIVITY
+

FEASIBILITY

Page 1229 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

BIKEWAYS Page 1230 of 1259
Agenda Item #13.1.

CROSSINGS Page 1231 of 1259
Agenda Item #13.1.

ROADWAY EXTENSIONS +
BRIDGE PROJECTS Page 1232 of 1259
Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN

SYNCHRO FINDINGS
• Purpose
• Compare how key extension and bridge projects change intersection operations and congestion; with an aim to ease Main St traffic and improve emergency routing • Projects studied:
• Adams St Extension
• Oak Ave Extension (Phase 1+2)
• Pope St Bridge
• Key takeaways
• All alternatives improve intersection operations and congestion • Oak Ave Extension to Grayson provides the largest systemwide benefit • Adams St and Oak Ave (Charter Oak) provide moderate improvements • Pope St Bridge improvements provide localized benefits

Page 1233 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN

COMPARATIVE TRADEOFFS
Alternative Key Benefits Key Constraints
Oak Ave
Extension
(Phase 2 to
Grayson)
• New north–south route parallel to Main St
• Expands local street network
• Reduces reliance on Main St
• Could help distribute traffic during an emergency
• Increased traffic along Oak Ave corridor
• Property acquisition will be required
• Requires new bridge across Sulphur
Creek
Adams St
Extension
• New east–west connection between Main St and Silverado Trail • Alignment through largely undeveloped, unencumbered land • Could serve as an additional regional emergency access route • Requires construction on existing levee
• Requires new bridge crossing Napa
River
Oak Ave
Extension
(Phase 1 to
Charter Oak)
• New north–south route parallel to Main St
• Strengthens local street connectivity
• Improves neighborhood circulation
• Reduces reliance on Main St for local trips
• Improves internal circulation that could help residents reach emergency access route
• Increased traffic along Oak Ave corridor
• Property acquisition will be required
• Requires new bridge across Sulphur
Creek
• Shorter extension means some delays
before diverting from Main Street
Pope St Bridge
• Improves bridge operations and driving comfort
• Improved access to the regional roadway network
• Enhances existing emergency access route
• More modest congestion relief since
travel still relies on Main St

Page 1234 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN

ATSC MOTIONS
• Motion approved to recommend the Adams Street Extension project rank highest as a priority.
• Motion approved to recommend the Oak Avenue Extension project rank lowest as a priority.

Page 1235 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Funding +
Implementation

Page 1236 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
FUNDING + IMPLEMENTATION

Page 1237 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
FUNDING + IMPLEMENTATION
Crossing improvements → lower-cost, targeted safety upgrades Bikeways → moderate-investment corridor improvements
Roadway extensions and bridges → complex infrastructure projects

Page 1238 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
FUNDING + IMPLEMENTATION
Crossing improvements → lower-cost, targeted safety upgrades Crossing improvement costs vary widely, from approximately $4,000 for high-visibility crosswalks to more than $100,000 for treatments that include features such as Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs).

Page 1239 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
FUNDING + IMPLEMENTATION
Bikeways → moderate-investment
corridor improvements
Bicycle facility costs were developed using a
cost-per-mile approach based on facility type
and a “low” and “high” range.

Page 1240 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
FUNDING + IMPLEMENTATION
Roadway extensions and bridges → complex infrastructure projects Roadway extensions and bridge projects are more complex and fall outside typical unit-cost ranges. These projects must account for right-of-way constraints, environmental permitting, grading challenges, and higher construction costs.

Page 1241 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
FUNDING + IMPLEMENTATION
• Multiple funding sources will be required to
implement the Streets Master Plan over time
• Projects will typically advance through the
City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as
funding sources are identified and prioritized
• Measure U is expected to remain a major
funding source for street and transportation
improvements
• Additional funding may come from
transportation impact fees, grants, developer
contributions, and financing tools
• Projects will be implemented incrementally as
funding becomes available.

Page 1242 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Next Steps

Page 1243 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN

NEXT STEPS
• Staff to provide recommended 20-year implementation
strategy for Finance Committee & City Council review/
consideration/adoption.
• Includes recommended priorities and schedule to deliver/fund. • Update the impact fee program based on SMP project cost estimates.
• Identify funding strategies for priority SMP projects.

Page 1244 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Thank you

Page 1245 of 1259 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

City Review / Direction
Needed
Proposed Action by
Toole
No Action Needed
PDF
page #
Section Commenter Comment Toole Response/Action
1 Cover Mary Stephenson I think this is an excellent plan for St Helena.

1. On page 26, should the entitled Farmstead hotel project be included? JL-Defer to St. Helena staff re: inclusiong of Farmstead hotel project. Toole to update legend of this map to say "Proposed Developments" instead of "Proposed subdivision and hotel" Yes, Figure 9 should be updated to include the entitled Farmstead Hotel project 1 Cover P Scott 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 No action needed
1 Cover Sandra Lowry 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.

No action needed
1 Cover Mary Stephenson 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.

No action needed
1 Cover Mary Stephenson 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.

No action needed
1 Cover Richard Corsetti Approved No action needed
1 Cover Anonymous 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? No action needed - comment unrelated to project.
3 Executive Summary Jeff Farmer 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.

No action needed - comment supports Plan recommendation. 4 Executive Summary Jeff Farmer 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? JL-Defer to St. Helena to follow-up directly with JF on this question The full length of the proposed bike facility, RR to Allyn, is nearly 2500'; the section of the Vine Trail from RR to Oak is 700'. Timing/Delivery/Cost responsibility is TBD. 4 Executive Summary Jeff Farmer 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.

No action needed - Unpaved paths are not part of this plan; only paths intended to be ADA-accessible are included
4 Executive Summary Carlotta Sainato 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.

Toole to add footnote to clarify
5 Executive Summary Anonymous 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.

No action needed
St. Helena Streets Master Plan
January 2026 Draft Plan – Public Comment Summary

02.20.2026

Page 1 of 6 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

City Review / Direction
Needed
Proposed Action by
Toole
No Action Needed
PDF
page #
Section Commenter Comment Toole Response/Action
St. Helena Streets Master Plan
January 2026 Draft Plan – Public Comment Summary

02.20.2026
8 Project Overview Nathan 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.

No action needed
10 Project Overview Richard Corsetti 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
No action needed - See above
10 Project Overview Anonymous 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.

No action needed - The curb extension would be located where it is currently illegal to park per AB413. 24 Existing Conditions Carlotta Sainato Street diagram shows bike lanes, not bike boulevards, so the option of including bike lanes should be included in the description. Toole to add bike lanes to description (this complies with General Plan) 24 Existing Conditions Carlotta Sainato 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.

Toole to replace text with longer description of Regional Collector from the General Plan : "Supports all modes, but is primarily designed to provide citywide and regional access for cars, transit and trucks trips. As Main Street/State Route 29 is the key commercial center for St. Helena, specific design features that foster livable streets and multimodal access may be applied, including wide sidewalks with regular street crossings, high-quality pedestrian amenities, and enhanced bus transit facilities." 25 Existing Conditions Thomas Carpenter 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.

No action needed - unclear what this comment is referring to - there is no proposed path at the end of Fulton Lane.
26 Existing Conditions Carlotta Sainato 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.

Toole to include Class IV Separated Bikeways
28 Existing Conditions Carlotta Sainato 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 Toole to insert text about sidewalk condition/need for maintenance 30 Existing Conditions Carlotta Sainato Grocery stores should also be considered in key destinations Toole to add DSP boundary to map (it's listed in key destinations) and note in text that grocery stores are another key destination of note.

Page 2 of 6 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

City Review / Direction
Needed
Proposed Action by
Toole
No Action Needed
PDF
page #
Section Commenter Comment Toole Response/Action
St. Helena Streets Master Plan
January 2026 Draft Plan – Public Comment Summary

02.20.2026
33 Existing Conditions Richard Seiferheld Spring Street going west beyond City limit on to White Sulphur Springs needs to be evaluated and included. No action needed. This Plan only applies to streets within City limits. 34 Existing Conditions Carlotta Sainato Crossing Assessment should include need for and recently passed state law regarding daylighting. Toole to add text about AB413 and its implications. 36 Existing Conditions Carlotta Sainato Key for Bicycle LTS labels roads as “arterial & collector” instead of Low or High LTS Toole to update map legend from "Traffic stress" to "Roads with high traffic stress" 38 Existing Conditions Carlotta Sainato 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? No action needed - Shared road facilities in themselves are not a downgrade if appropriate traffic calming treatments are used. The facilities proposed were selected to match the varying road types. 38 Existing Conditions Carlotta Sainato Connectivity Needs Assessment should include gaps in bicycle network in its key challenges No revision needed. Yes, there are gaps in the network but that isn't really a planning challenge; we have proposed a connected network of bike facilities to theoretically address this. The challenging part is balanacing limited ROW between bikes and vehicles, which is noted in the challenges. 39 Existing Conditions Carlotta Sainato 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) Toole to append to this sentence to "Once the proposed bikeway network is substantially built out, there is potential to…"
43 Network-wide
Recommendations
Jeff Farmer Madrona from Hudson to Riesling is narrow. Suggest class III instead of bike lanes (class II) No action needed. Class III would not be appropriate for a 30 MPH connector. Installing a Class II is more approriate given roadway type and assumes installation of additional pavement to expand roadway width. 43 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato 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
No action needed. There are no proposed facility upgrades for Silverado Trail in this Plan. 43 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato 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
No action needed. Toole to retain existing recommendation. This comment may be a misread of the recommendations table. The proposed facility for College Ave is Class III. "Proposed Class I" refers to the SE extent of the facility.
43 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato 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.

No action needed. Toole to retain existing recommendations as these have been closely coordinated with concurrent NVTA Plan. When it comes time to design and install bike facilities on these streets, public engagement can help determine what facility is right for the residents/parking needs. 43 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato 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
Toole to retain existing facility recommendation, which was closely coordinated with concurrent NVTA Plan.

Whether to partially modify the facility would be determined when it comes time to design and implement the specific faility (beyond SMP scope).
43 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato Pratt Avenue along the Vine Trail alignment should be Class I, not Class II. Toole to update map to match proposed facility type listed in table (Class I). 44 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato 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.

No action needed. Toole to retain existing recommendations as these have been closely coordinated between St. Helena staff and concurrent NVTA Plan.

Page 3 of 6 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

City Review / Direction
Needed
Proposed Action by
Toole
No Action Needed
PDF
page #
Section Commenter Comment Toole Response/Action
St. Helena Streets Master Plan
January 2026 Draft Plan – Public Comment Summary

02.20.2026
44 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato 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.

Toole to update relevant parts of existing Pope St facility to be Class III. In terms of recommendations, Class I is not feasible SW of where it is proposed in this Plan. 45 Network-wide
Recommendations
Jeff Farmer 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.

No action needed - comment is outside scope of project. 45 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato Fill Oak Ave Class III gap for continuous access to middle school No action needed. Project is within Downtown Specific Plan project boundary. 45 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato Fill bicycle facilities gap between where Class IIs are shown to end on Madrona and Vine Trail access on Fulton Toole to adjust linework on #5 so that it doesn't appear as if there's a gap. 45 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato There should also be a proposed Class I on Mills according to other plans. Toole to update map to include TBD facility on Mills to match project list in table. 45 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato Existing Class IIs on Starr Ave are not shown Toole to update map to include this. 46 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato 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 JL-Defer to City staff on guidance.

The Mills Realignment is already in the CIP (i.e. CIP No. R26-06). Uncertain if additional note/commentary is necessary. None of the projects in Table 4 or Figure 16 are in the CIP. 46 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato Main at Vintage Ave needs crossing improvements with future Vine Trail installation given walkability from high school and location of pediatrician and orthodontist
No action needed. Project is within Downtown Specific Plan project boundary. 46 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato Main at Pratt needs bulb-outs and/or traffic-calming/gateway treatment for southbound traffic coming in at higher speeds No action needed. Project is within Downtown Specific Plan project boundary. 47 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato Hunt & Edwards – include bulb-outs to help improve crossing and traffic-calm Hunt JL-Defer to St. Helena staff on whether to include this as a recommendation References Map #20; City open to future detailed study to address travel lane and parking configuration. 47 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato Add bulb-outs at Hillview at the middle school entrance – painted curb extensions show desire for this improvement JL-Defer to St. Helena staff on whether to include this as a recommendation References Map #22; City agrees with comment to revise Table 3 description. 47 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato Pope & Starr needs vegetation management to improve RRFB visibility JL-No update to plan. Elevating this to City staff as it is an immediate maintenance issue.

Should add this to Grapevine report a concern.
47 Network-wide
Recommendations
Jeff Farmer #11 crossing at main/1000 main. Why needed. Close to Charter oak crossing No action needed. Intention is to reduce long block lengths without pedestrian crossings. 47 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato 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).

No action needed. Project is within Downtown Specific Plan project boundary.

Page 4 of 6 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

City Review / Direction
Needed
Proposed Action by
Toole
No Action Needed
PDF
page #
Section Commenter Comment Toole Response/Action
St. Helena Streets Master Plan
January 2026 Draft Plan – Public Comment Summary

02.20.2026
47 Network-wide
Recommendations
Anonymous 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.

Toole to update text to reference AB413 and include systemic recommendation to paint curbs red for daylighting.
48 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato Supportive of bulb-outs at Spring & Kearney for traffic-calming and improved pedestrian visibility at uncontrolled crosswalk JL-Defer to St. Helena staff on whether to include this as a recommendation References Map #31; City is open to additional study of travel lane/parking configuration and pedestrian volume
48 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato Spring & Valley View – add curb extensions JL-Defer to St. Helena staff on whether to include this as a recommendation References Map #36; City is open to additional study of travel lane/parking configuration and pedestrian volume
48 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato Curb extensions at Madrona and Kearney need to be extended JL-Defer to St. Helena staff on whether to include this as a recommendation No improvements are recommended at this time; Bulbouts were constructed in 2024. 48 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato 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.

JL-Defer to St. Helena staff on whether to include this as a recommendation. If not, should we remove list of intersections that were reviewed and do not need improvements? It's more that they don't have immediate need for improvements; don't want this intention to be misconstrued by those reading the plan.

Upgraded curb ramps/striping were completed in 2024. Any additional improvements to the intersection to facilitate bicycle safety/movement would be borne by the Vine Trail. 49 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato 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.

JL-Defer to St. Helena staff on whether to include this as a recommendation City agrees; table will be updated to include bulb outs subject to configuration study. 49 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato 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.

Toole to update project list to include systemic recommendation to install red paint daylighting at all crossings and intersections re: AB 413.
49 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato Fill bicycle facilities gap between where Class IIs are shown to end on Madrona and Vine Trail access on Fulton Toole to update project list to include systemic recommendation to install red paint daylighting at all crossings and intersections re: AB 413.
50 Network-wide
Recommendations
Carlotta Sainato 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.

No action needed.
57 Implementation Carlotta Sainato 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.

No action needed.

Page 5 of 6 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

City Review / Direction
Needed
Proposed Action by
Toole
No Action Needed
PDF
page #
Section Commenter Comment Toole Response/Action
St. Helena Streets Master Plan
January 2026 Draft Plan – Public Comment Summary

02.20.2026
58 Implementation Carlotta Sainato Address how roadway extension projects impact City General Plan goals around reducing VMT. Toole to add sentence: In alignment with the General Plan’s VMT reduction goals, the roadway extensions would support necessary vehicular connectivity while being designed as multimodal corridors that integrate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities to encourage alternatives to single-occupant vehicle travel and help manage overall VMT.
59 Implementation Carlotta Sainato 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.

No action needed. Cost ranges for crossing treatments are also addressed in text earlier on that page. All proposed project costs will be available in the appendix. 59 Implementation Carlotta Sainato 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.

Toole to update Class I and Class II low end costs, an inconsistency was identified in the Class I and II lowend estimate cost sheets, and all affected costs will be updated accordingly. 68 Carlotta Sainato 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.

No action needed. This is a wayfinding-related concern to be addressed by Downtown Specific Plan. 69 Carlotta Sainato 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.

No action needed. Concern to be addressed in further concept design stages. 69 Carlotta Sainato 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 No action needed. Design concern to be addressed in further concept design stages. 70 Carlotta Sainato 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.

No action needed - comment supports Plan recommendation. 70 Anonymous 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 No action needed. The curb extension would be located where it is currently illegal to park per AB413. 71 Ann Nevero 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? No action needed. City budget question outside of scope of plan. 77 Carlotta Sainato 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.

Toole to add language that more clearly state that Specific Plan designs are outdated and will need to be revised based on current best practices.

Page 6 of 6 ends

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1252 of 1259 ends






 








  !!
"#$% $
&'!#$% $() *+$#,-./%0 1

"$,
234534546
2785
9:
;9<,/
=%% -
&><,//%% -(/,?!)@  -#.+A0
B-$#<
:#?$
#-*
=-/,
: %< $)C
D@
E$ )
:#) $
9#-
FE:9G
,)
-/$#+,-+
)

-- / ))#$,?
,%> % -
=#))
HH
<,
#- )
-

%#-?
!
$
$$#
$#*).

I
- *

 #$-
!$%
$
%,)#
#**,-+
=#))
HH
#- )

E>$,-+
E$ .

D@#
) /,-
!
E>$,-+
,)
')

-#$$J.

I,@
K!
$#A 
#- )C
A @,/ )
#$
#J#?)
*$,A,-+
,-
@
<,
#- ).

D@
E:9
-J
#))
)

$ > #
@,)
%,)#
-
%$
!
$
$$#
$#*).
9#$)
!
:,)C
E>@$
E>$,-+)C
#-*
:#*$-#
#$
)
* ),+-# *.
:#*$-#
J )
!
B*)-
,)
@
%)
+$ +,)
L#%> .

M**,-+
<,
#- )
J*
$ N,$
J,* -,-+
@
$#*
#-*
,%,-#,-+
@
N,$?
>#@
-
@
)@
),* .
:#*$-#O)
* ),+-#,-
#)
#
P/-- /$P

J,@
#
)> *
,%,
!
25 :9B
N#,!, )
,

<
=#))
HH.

Q
,O)
-?
/-- /,-+
@
E?A#- $
- ,+@<$@*

@
*J-J-
)
@
$#!!,/
 A 
,)
A $?
J.

D@ $
@#A
< -
-
#//,* -)
$ >$ *
< J -
<, )
#-*
A @,/ )
)
H
,)
)#!

@#A
@ %
)@#$
@
$#*.

D@#O)
=#))
HHH.

D@ )
$$#
)$ )
)@*
$ %#,-
=#))
HHH
- ))
@ $
,)
)%
A $$,*,-+
)#! ?
$ #)-
$
/@#-+
,-
@ ,$
) .

R 7
D@ )
#$
%?
>,-,-)
#-*
-
@)
!
@
M/,A
D$#-)>$#,-
#-*
E)#,-#<,,?
=%%,
FMDE=G.
!!
"#$% $
E.

B  -#
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 1253 of 1259 ends
Page 1254 of 1259 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Finance
DATE: March 24, 2026
FROM: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Appropriate Funds from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Measure E Fund for the Fountain Street Affordable
Housing Development.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
1) Adopt a Resolution Appropriating $1.5 Million from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Measure E Fund for
the Fountain Street Affordable Housing Development; 2)
Direct the City Manager to memorialize the commitment in a commitment letter to the developer for its application to the Tax Credit Allocation Committee; and 3) direct staff to return to Council at the appropriate time with a proposed loan agreement between the Fountain Street Developer
and the City for expenditure of the $1.5 million.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

October 22, 2024 - Authorized Resolution 2024-150
authorizing the waiver of permit fees in the amount of
$199,922 and payment of development impact fees and
water neutrality in lieu fees in the amount of $1,100,042 from Affordable Housing funds.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The purpose is to receive direction from City Council for the request from Our Town St. Helena to appropriate an
additional $2.2 million from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Measure E Fund for the Fountain Street
Affordable Housing Development.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total financial impact is $1.5 million utilizing funds from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Fund 751) and the
Measure E Fund (Fund 752), which is designated for
affordable housing activities; provided, however, in the event that Council increases the commitment to the
development pursuant to the request from the developer, the impact to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and
Measure E Fund will be the amount approved by the
Council.

BACKGROUND:

The Fountain Street multifamily housing development (the “Housing Development”) received City approval on October 31, 2025. The Housing Development is being developed through a partnership between Our Town St Helena and Burbank Housing (the “Partnership”).

Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 1255 of 1259 ends

The proposed 100 percent affordable Housing Development will include 40 units (39 rentals and one on-site manager’s unit) with a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments in three buildings. The 1.8-acre site will include surface parking (56 spaces), shared amenities including common usable open space with a play area, picnic area, outdoor seating, and indoor shared amenities including a laundry room, indoor bicycle storage, kitchen, and lounge. Part of the property will accommodate the realigned Mills Lane. Solar panels, EV chargers, indoor and outdoor bicycle storage, low-water use fixtures, drought-tolerant landscaping, and connection to future purple pipe will contribute to the Housing Development’s sustainability features, as will its central location and proximity to public transit, the future Vine Trail, schools, and downtown St Helena. The bioretention area will double as a passive public recreation area and location for public art.

To help facilitate the Housing Development, on October 22, 2024, the City Council adopted a resolution (No. 2024-150) to approve the waiver of building and grading permit fees and certain development impact fees in an amount not to exceed $199,922, and authorized the use of Affordable Housing Trust Funds and/or Measure E Funds in an amount not to exceed $1,100,042 for the remaining fee balance. While the Partnership is appreciative of the Council’s support of the Housing Development, the Partnership has declined the waiver of building and grading permit fees because a waiver would trigger prevailing wages, impacting construction costs by approximately 20 percent.

DISCUSSION:

The current estimated cost for the Housing Development is $27 million including soft costs and excluding land. (The land is being donated by the Phelps family.) The Partnership is now preparing to apply for federal tax credit financing, with application deadlines in April and July 2026. Tax credits are provided by the federal government through the states and purchased by private investors to provide up-front equity for development in exchange for tax relief. This is a highly competitive process, and to score well on the application, the Partnership must demonstrate a strong local financial commitment to the Housing Development. In this case, local funding sources are limited to local government housing trust funds, private donations, and grants from local foundations. The Partnership is pursuing all options, and to date OTSH has received private cash donation pledges of $4.25 million from three individuals, as well as the land donation. To pursue funds from the County, the Partnership must demonstrate a firm commitment from the City. However, even with a City commitment, the Partnership is not confident it would be successful with a County request because it has been told the County’s trust fund dollars are nearly all pre-committed. (Please note: any financial commitment from the County will require proportional RHNA credit sharing between the City and County.)
For a strong tax credit application, the Partnership is requesting an allocation of $2.2 million from the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The Partnership has indicated that its request can be met over time as funding becomes available and can be provided Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 1256 of 1259 ends

in the form of permanent financing toward the end of construction. Terms of such a loan can be negotiated and approved by Council later in the process. The important thing in the short term is to secure evidence of a City commitment in the form of a resolution (attached) and a letter from the City Manager.

The current balance of in the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund is $1,089,353, and the current balance in the Measure E Fund is $1,521,236, for a total of $2,610,589. The City has currently committed $1,100,042 of that total amount, leaving an uncommitted fund balance of $1,510,547. Given the limited current availability of funds, City staff is reluctant to commit the full amount of available funds plus future projected funds toward this Housing Development, as it would limit City staff’s flexibility in meeting future housing goals. Staff supports making a significant additional contribution to the Housing Development and, accordingly, recommends that the City Council commit $1.5 million.

However, the Council retains the discretion to approve the full requested amount of $2.2 million.

If approved, the City’s total commitment of $2.6 million from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Measure E Fund, including the 2024 adopted resolution, would comprise roughly 9.6 percent of the total funding for the Housing Development. By comparison, the City made a $1 million loan to the 963 Pope Street project for acquisition and development of four new units, which was $250,000 per door; the amount proposed by staff for Fountain Street is the equivalent of $65,000 per door. If the Council were to grant the Partnership’s full request, the City’s total commitment to the Housing Development would be $3.3 million, or 12 percent of total funding for the Housing Development, and the equivalent of $82,500 per door.

If the partnership receives a tax credit award, it must begin construction within 180 days of funding, so the Housing Development must be building permit ready and all necessary funding assembled to begin construction within that timeframe (estimated spring/summer 2027). To that end, Burbank Housing is evaluating bids from general contractors and will soon make a selection so the Partnership can get started on preparing construction drawings.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

None.

GOAL:

Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution Authorization for Allocating Affordable Housing Trust Funds Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 1257 of 1259 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 -
Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Helena Allocating $1.5 Million from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and/or Measure E Fund to the 0 Fountain Street Affordable Housing Development at 0 Fountain Street in the City of St.

Helena, California.

RECITALS
A. Per SHMC Section 17.30.050, monies deposited in the housing fund along with any interest earnings on such monies shall be used solely to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to households of moderate-, low- and very low- income households; and
B. All revenues from Measure E are restricted to programs and services for affordable and workforce housing, including activities to increase, improve and preserve the City’s supply of rental and for-sale housing for households earning up to 120% of area median income (AMI); and
C. The proposed 0 Fountain Street Affordable Housing Development (“the Development”), which received development entitlements from the City on October 31, 2025, will provide 39 rental apartments for very low- and low-income households and one apartment for an on-site manager; and
D. The Development will provide much-needed housing that is affordable to workers in the area who support local industries including agriculture, lodging and hospitality, retail and restaurants, education, health care, and others; and E. The Development will be located within close walking distance to public transit, bicycle facilities, downtown St. Helena, schools, parks, and businesses, further supporting the City’s climate goals; and
F. The City wishes to commit funding from its Affordable Housing Trust fund and Measure E fund to ensure the Development is able to meet its funding needs.

RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena resolves as follows:

1. The City Council hereby commits funds in an amount not to exceed $1.5 million from the Affordable Housing Trust fund and the Measure E fund. Funds will be allocated for the 0 Fountain Street Affordable Housing Fund as they become available, and formally appropriated through a future loan agreement between the City and developer – a partnership between Burbank Housing and Our Town St Helena -- at the initiation of the developer.

Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 1258 of 1259 ends

2. To memorialize the City’s commitment, the City Manager is hereby directed to finalize a letter consistent with the terms set forth in this resolution that the developer may utilize for financing application purposes in the form as approved by the City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on March 24, 2026, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Deasy: __________
Councilmember Barak: __________
Councilmember Spadarotto: __________
Councilmember Summers: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradley, City Clerk
Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 1259 of 1259 ends
← All documents from this meeting