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
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?
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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 ulative 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
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
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
ulative 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)
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
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
ulative 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)
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
St Helena Streets Master Plan
Appendix G
Stormwater + Utilities
Technical Memo
St. Helena Streets Master Plan
Existing Conditions:
Stormwater Infrastructure +
Utilities
December 2, 2024
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.
November 2024 Page 3 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
2040 General Plan Update: Figure 9.1 Flood Zones
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)
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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,
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
November 2024 Page 19 of 20 BKF ENGINEERS
Fountain Street Workforce Housing: Site Plan
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
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
#*
!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
#*
!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
#*
!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
#*
!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
"
=)
"
=)
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
"
=)
"
=)
"
=)
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
"
=)
"
=)
"
=)
"
=)
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
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
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
St Helena Streets Master Plan
Appendix H
Funding Strategies Memo
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.
Financing Plan for City of St. Helena Streets Master Plan
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
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
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
Financing Plan for City of St. Helena Streets Master Plan
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
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
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.
Financing Plan for City of St. Helena Streets Master Plan
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.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
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
Financing Plan for City of St. Helena Streets Master Plan
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)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
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
Financing Plan for City of St. Helena Streets Master Plan
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.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
• 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.
Appendix A: Transportation Grant
Opportunities
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
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
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
St Helena
Streets
Master Plan
Council Meeting
Plan Adoption
May 5, 2026
Joseph Leach, PE
Assistant City Manager
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Anjulie Palta | Toole Design
Ian Barnes, PE | Fehr & Peers
AGENDA
2 • Project Overview + Final Plan Structure
• Public Comments
• Key Plan Components
• Funding and Implementation
• Next Steps
Project Overview +
Final Plan Structure
CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
PROJECT AREA
4 • City-Wide Initiative
• Excludes DSP Area
City of St. Helena
Downtown Specific Plan Boundary
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
CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
PROCESS
Spring – Summer 2024 Fall – Winter 2024 Winter - Spring 2025 Summer - Fall 2025 Fall - Spring 2026
CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
PROCESS
Spring – Summer 2024 Fall – Winter 2024 Winter - Spring 2025 Summer - Fall 2025 Fall - Spring 2026
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
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
Public Comments
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
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
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
Key Plan Components
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
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
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
CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
PRIORITIZATION
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
+
ACCESS
+
SAFETY
+
CONNECTIVITY
+
FEASIBILITY
BIKEWAYS
CROSSINGS
ROADWAY EXTENSIONS +
BRIDGE PROJECTS
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
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
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.
Funding +
Implementation
CITY OF ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
FUNDING + IMPLEMENTATION
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
Next Steps
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.
Thank you
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
!""
# $ %
&'(')*)+
,*-*(
.
/01
23 4
3
5
3! 6713
#"8$
9
:
7
"
7
!""
# #
4
;36
31
1
2
<#
=
1
>
11
;1?
1
"
1
7
3
8
#
@
1
3
7
3
8
7 1
;
11
;1?
12 6
;3
"
3
A
B2
;1C#
D3
3
6
;
11
6
8
1
3
"
6 "3>
;3
31
>>6
1
#
D3
8
;1
7 1
"
6
7
3
11;1
3
7
"
3
3
#
E
FGHIG
JKILM
NGOPQRGSM
THRKILMRL
UVUWXYVWXYXZ
I[GHIGRG\PMH]O^_[GI\`R][
I[GHIGaKILM`R][
NIObMP
EO
?
6
(?
)*)+
c-)d
.
!""
# $
;
-
e
4 3?
@
f
>
6
1
1
1
2
?
12 6
;3
6
"
g2
"?
1
2"
;
#
;1
6
"
3
2>
7
>
;1
>
#
@
;13
3
12
"
6?
>
1
@
?
@
;
1
12 7
1
"
"
7
>
'
11;
28
1-
,#
3
1"
"
211
1
>
3
3
>
3
1
;
>"
>1
#
@
38
>
1
31
211
7
38
32
77
3
1
;
3
1
#
.1
7
3
"
"
1 3
2
7
>
3
1
;
A
8 ;3
3
1
>
23C?
1
2
"
3
211
3
1
;
51
7
1 ;3
3
>
"
1#
B
1
6
2 3
211
1
7
3
1;1
7
211>
3
h
6#
i
2
3
;1
"
#
)#
3
;
11;
22
1
;1
31
8 6
132
>1
3
38
"
1 ;
3
c*
"
1
"
2
6
3j
3
8 6
3
8"
;3
6 1
?
>
1 k
1
1
#
B
1
17
3
1
7
3
>1
1
3
3
6
2
"
"
1#
g 276
3
1"
?
51
>
7
31
7
6
1
1#
.1
lmnmopq
rstol
uv vwxy
z
{|}~
~w
z
y||
}tmm|
y|||x~|mwxymx|mxmuuuuuuuuuwouuosu}~}x|v}uwouuw x ~¡rmo Page 1047 of 1051
!" #$
%
&'()
*$ + )" #$)#
,-,./0-./0/1
2 )
3'$ 4&562
37)42
2 8" #$7)42
% &9$'
&
:;<;=>? @AB=: CD DEFG H IJKLMN OLEPN H QRSGJJT
NSSMKB;;JRSGJJTUJVVFPLUPJW;WEFG;FXYJZ;F[;CCTCO\CCCCCC]^_`aEMWaP=YbCcdCce=fag\ACKThL]KFi_TRJDjKQ_PP\Q_C`EkRle=f_CCmXESFnLo=;= Page 1048 of 1051
!!
"#$% $
&'!#$% $() *+$#,-./%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 $$,*,-+
)#! ?
$ #)-
$
/@#-+
,-
@ ,$
) .
R 7
D@ )
#$
%?
>,-,-)
#-*
-
@)
!
@
M/,A
D$#-)>$#,-
#-*
E)#,-#<,,?
=%%,
FMDE=G.
!!
"#$% $
E.
B -#
!"
#$$
%&
'
(%()
$*+
,-.-+/
01-.-+/23/+45678 9:;<
=>=?>=@=A
BCB@
*D
*E<6
F77-.
01E<6677-.36</GH4--.+5IJ8
KLMNOM
NPP
QRMOM
STUUMVQO
WTX
QRM
YSQZ[M
\XNVO]TXQNQZTV
NVP
^_OQNZVN`ZLZQa
bTUUZQQMM
UMMQZVcd
eXTU
N
PTfMVgaMNX
XMOZPMVQ
TW
^]XZVc
^QXMMQ
hMOQ
TW
iNLLMa
iZMh
^QXMMQd
jV
cMVMXNLk
QRM
^NZVQ
lMLMVN
^QXMMQO
mNOQMX
KLNV
XMNPO
LZnM
ZQ
hNO
hXZQQMV
`a
QRM
`ZSaSLM
O]MSZNL
ZVQMXMOQOo
YPPZVc
`ZSaSLM
NSSTUUTPNQZTVO
ZO
NPUZXN`LMk
`_Q
VTQ
hRMV
ZQ
UNnMO
^NZVQ
lMLMVpO
OQXMMQO
qr^^
ONWM
WTX
SNXO
NVP
QRM
T[MXNLL
]T]_LNQZTVs
\RMXM
ZO
N
R_cM
WZVNVSZNL
STOQ
QT
UNVa
TW
QRM
tVZSMgQTgRN[Mt
O_ccMOQMP
ZU]XT[MUMVQOk
NVP
VT
XMNL
]LNVVZVc
TV
RTh
QT
]Na
WTX
QRM
`Zc
OQXNQMcZS
]XTuMSQOs
j
O_ccMOQ
Mv]LZSZQLa
PZ[ZPZVc
ORTXQgQTgUMPZ_U
QMXU
NWWTXPN`LM
]XTuMSQO
WXTU
QRM
XT_cRLa
RNLW
TW
QRMOM
]XTuMSQO
hRZSR
NXMVpQ
NWWTXPN`LM
`a
QRM
bZQas
YVP
u_OQ
`MSN_OM
QRM
bT_VQak
^QNQM
TX
eMPMXNL
cT[MXVUMVQ
ZO
hZLLZVc
QT
]Na
WTX
OTUMQRZVc
PTMOVpQ
UMNV
ZQpO
XZcRQ
WTX
^NZVQ
lMLMVNs
wMOQXNZVQ
ZO
SRMN]MXk
NVP
TWQMV
]XMQQZMXsss
jV
NPPZQZTVk
QRM
bZQa
]NaO
N
t[ZOZ_NL
STOQt
WTX
NLL
QRMOM
ZU]XT[MUMVQOd
QRM
ST_VQXa
QThV
[NL_MP
`a
_O
NLL
ZO
UNPM
UTXM
NVP
UTXM
tO_`_X`NVt
`a
QTT
UNVa
OZcVOk
XTNP
]NZVQZVcOk
S_X`Ok
MQS
T_QOZPM
TW
QRM
bMVQXNL
x_OZVMOO
yZOQXZSQs
zZQVMOO
QRM
t[ZO_NL
]TLL_QZTVt
SN_OMP
`a
QRM
T[MXgOZcVNcM
TW
QRM
iZVM
\XNZL
`MQhMMV
^NZVQ
lMLMVN
NVP
bNLZOQTcNs
KLMNOM
PTVpQ
XM]MNQ
QRNQ
UZOQNnMs
\hT
[MXa
O]MSZWZS
O_ccMOQZTVOd
\RM
`ZnM
LNVM
TV
VTXQR
OZPM
TW
^]XZVc
^QXMMQ
hMOQ
TW
iNLLMa
iZMh
^QXMMQ
ZO
ZO
QTT
hZPM
NVP
WTXSMO
N_QT
QXNWWZS
RMNPZVc
zMOQ
TV
^]XZVc
^QXMMQ
hNa
QTT
WNX
OT_QRhNXPO
gg
T[MX
QRM
XTNPpO
PZ[ZPZVc
LZVMs
yY{|rw}~^o
Y_QTUT`ZLM
QXNWWZS
T_Q
V_U`MXO
`ZnM
QXNWWZS
TV
QRNQ
]NXQ
TW
^]XZVc
^QXMMQ
`a
R_VPXMPO
QRT_ONVP
QT
TVMs
KLMNOM
ORXZVn
TX
XMUT[M
QRM
VTXQR
OZPM
`ZnM
LNVMo
\RM
]XT]TOMP
`ZnM
]NQR
NLTVc
QRM
OT_QR
OZPM
TW
^_L]R_X
bXMMn
zMOQ
TW
iNLLMa
iZMh
^QXMMQ
ZO
NV
MSTLTcZSNLLa
NVP
NMOQRMQZSNLLa
RTXXZ`LM
ZPMNo
\RM
cT[MXVUMVQ
u_OQ
O]MVQ
UZLLZTVO
QT
XMUT[M
QRM
WZOR
LNPPMX
TV
^_L]R_X
bXMMn
u_OQ
hMOQ
TW
^NZVQ
lMLMVN
bZQa
LZUZQO
QT
XMOQTXM
^NLUTV
NVP
^QMMLRMNP
O]NhVZVc
RN`ZQNQs
eZORZVc
TV
QRM
bXMMn
ZO
WTX`ZPPMVk
NVP
R_UNV
NSQZ[ZQa
ZV
TW
SLTOM
QT
QRM
OQXMNU
`MP
ZO
PNVcMXT_O
WTX
QRM
WZOR
NVP
N
XNVcM
TW
TQRMX
hZLPLZWMs
x_ZLPZVc
N
`XZPcM
TW
^_L]R_X
bXMMn
ZO
LZnMLa
MV[ZXTVUMVQNLLa
SRNLLMVcZVck
NVP
PTMO
VTQ
RN[M
VMZcR`TXRTTP
O_]]TXQs
jVSXMNOMP
`ZnM
NVP
hNLnZVc
QXNWWZS
tZV
QRM
hTTPOt
NLTVc
QRM
SXMMn
ZO
ZV
ZQOMLW
N
R_cM
WZXM
PNVcMXs
MM]
QRM
`ZnMO
TV
QRM
XTNPO
SLTOMX
QT
QRM
SMVQMX
TW
QThVs
^ZVSMXMLak
KNQ
MVMNLa
ggggg
eTXhNXPMP
mMOONcM
ggggg
bZQa
TW
^Qs
lMLMVN
ShVTQZWZSNQZTVZSTU]NOOQMSRsSTU
t]nMVMNLaaNRTTsSTUt
]nMVMNLaaNRTTsSTU
eXZPNak
eM`X_NXa
k
NQ
dd
Km
K^\
!" #$$
%& ' (%()
*
* $
!" #$$
%& ' (%()
+!
* !!,
!- , * $
./0 123456723/74 348 53/43/9/: ;7<</ = >? @32 A>AB *
$ $
$ * #"
C D!C +!
*
$
C
E " , ! !-
$
!
!!, *
!- F
* #"
C D! $
*
"
$ $
!"C
" * " *
$
!
* #" #!-G
HI%IJ K)L
(I&( $!
"!-M"
*!C
C
NNNO/:7P5Q943O72R
# F