St. Helena City Council
May 5, 2026

City of St. Helena
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, May 5, 2026 @ 4:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena CA
PLEASE NOTE: Any person who wishes to speak regarding an item on the agenda or make a comment under the "Public Forum" portion of the agenda may do so, but please observe the time limit of four minutes.

The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on Comcast Channel 28 and on the City’s website.

Public comment for City Council meetings will be accepted via email via to [email protected]. All public comments must be received three hours prior to the meeting. All other public comments received after the deadline will be attached to the item the next business day or soon thereafter. Public comments will not be read out loud but will be publicly available and attached to the online City Council agenda.

To ensure interpreters are available, requests must be made at least 72 hours in advance by calling the Office of the City Clerk at (707) 968-2640 or emailing [email protected].

The schedule of upcoming meetings and published meeting agendas can be found on the City of St. Helena website at cityofsthelena.gov.

Servicios de interpretación en español durante la reunión pueden ser solicitados por el público.

Para asegurar que los intérpretes estén disponibles, los servicios tienen que ser solicitados al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión llamando a la oficina de la Secretaria de la Ciudad al (707) 968-2640 o por correo electrónico a [email protected].

El horario de las reuniones publicadas y próximas puede ser localizado en el sitio de web de la Ciudad en cityofsthelena.gov

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor: Michelle Deasy, City Council Members: Aaron Barak, Kate Spadarotto

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

5. PUBLIC FORUM
Under California law, public comments at special meetings are limited to subjects on the agenda only. Therefore public comment will take place during consideration of the item. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes.

5.1. Public Comment

6. NEW BUSINESS

6.1. Adopt a resolution accepting the St. Helena Streets Master Plan (May 2026) and directing staff to utilize the Plan to guide future capital improvement planning, grant applications, and transportation project implementation.

AMENDED RESOLUTION 4-30-2026
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) Prepared By: Joseph Leach, Director of Public Works
Recommendation: Adoption of the attached resolution.

7. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for May 12, 2026, at 6 p.m.

This agenda was posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, and at Vintage Hall, 465 Main Street, St. Helena, California on April 30, 2026.

Andrew Bradley, City Clerk
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s Office (707) 967-2792. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES
The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City of St. Helena is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision, including without limitation Government Code section 65009 applicable to many land use and zoning decisions, Government Code section 66499.37 applicable to the Subdivision Map Act, and Public Resources Code section 21167 applicable to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. Government Code section 65009 and 66499.37, and Public Resources Code section 21167, impose shorter limitations periods and requirements, including timely service in addition to filing.

If a person wishes to challenge the above actions in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of St. Helena, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, California, during normal business hours and by appointment. In addition, such writings or documents will be made available on the City’s website at cityofsthelena.gov and will be available for public review at the respective meeting.

Agendas Report to the Special City Council
Agenda Section: PUBLIC FORUM
Department: Admin
DATE: May 5, 2026
FROM:

SUBJECT:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Public Comment - Tamara Sorensen

1 City Council
Re: Council Code of Ethics—Standards, Conduct, and Public Trust Good evening,
This is the right time to raise this. I’d like to begin with the Council’s own adopted Code of Ethics.

What does it mean, in practice, to “treat one another, staff, and the public with respect and professionalism”?
What does it require to conduct City business with “integrity and transparency”? What does it look like to “uphold the public trust” in both word and action—particularly when decisions are complex, scrutiny is high, and the community is fully engaged? These are not abstract principles—they are the standard by which leadership is measured.

So the question becomes:

Do current practices reflect these commitments?
Does the tone, engagement, and conduct observed in public meetings align with the seriousness of the responsibilities entrusted to this body?
Do internal dynamics—whether visible or later revealed—reinforce public confidence, or diminish it?
Residents are paying close attention—not only to decisions, but to how those decisions are made, how colleagues are treated, and how the work itself is carried out—and whether that reflects respect not only for the institution itself, but for the residents who entrusted you with these roles.

Because public trust is shaped as much by conduct as it is by outcomes.

The Code of Ethics exists to ensure that even in moments of disagreement or pressure, there remains a shared standard—one that reflects discipline, professionalism, and respect for the institution.

If there is a growing perception that these standards are not being upheld, it is not a matter to be dismissed. It is a signal that alignment between expectation and practice has weakened.

And that gap does not go unnoticed.

Which leads to a straightforward consideration:

2 If the standards articulated in the Council’s own Code of Ethics are not being met—or are no longer attainable within the current structure—then it is appropriate to ask whether continued service in these roles is consistent with the responsibilities of the position.

Public service requires more than participation. It requires adherence to the standards that sustain public confidence.

Where that adherence is strong, trust follows.

Where it is not, accountability must.

Respectfully,
Tamara Sorensen
St. Helena Resident

Agendas Report to the Special City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Public Works Department
DATE: May 5, 2026
FROM: Joseph Leach, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Adopt a resolution accepting the St. Helena Streets Master Plan (May 2026) and directing staff to utilize the Plan to guide future capital improvement planning, grant applications, and
transportation project implementation (including the future updating of various applicable Development Impact Fees).

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Adoption of the attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
2019 – Adoption of the St. Helena General Plan Update 2040 2021 – Adoption of the Active Transportation and Safe Routes to School Plan
March 12, 2024 adopted Reso 2024-028 authorizing execution of Professional Services Agreement with Toole Design.

December 2024 – City Council study session providing direction on network-wide recommendations and prioritization framework.

February 25, 2025 adopted Reso 2025-015 authorizing execution of Amendment 1 to the agreement with Toole for a total not-toexceed contract of $325,374.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The purpose of this item is to present the St. Helena Streets Master Plan and request City Council acceptance of the Plan as a comprehensive, citywide framework to guide future transportation investments, improve safety and mobility, and support long-term implementation of multimodal infrastructure improvements with the expectation that implementation (i.e. funding options and alternatives) of priority projects would be the subject of a future Council agenda.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Streets Master Plan was funded through previously approved City budget allocations and applicable resources. Implementation costs for projects identified in the Plan vary widely, ranging from minor striping improvements of approximately $4,000 to major capital projects exceeding $50 million. As noted in this report, next steps will include development of funding strategies for

priority projects for Finance Committee deliberation and City Council adoption.

CEQA DETERMINATION: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) BACKGROUND:

The St. Helena Streets Master Plan was developed to establish a coordinated vision for improving how people move throughout the city, whether walking, biking, driving, or taking transit. The Plan builds upon the City’s General Plan and previously adopted transportation and safety plans, consolidating multiple efforts into a single, unified framework.

The Plan responds to long-standing transportation challenges, including heavy reliance on Main Street (State Route 29), limited east–west connectivity, gaps in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and constrained bridge crossings. It also reflects the City Council-approved Vine Trail alignment and incorporates community input and technical analysis to guide future improvements.

This item was originally scheduled for consideration at the March 24, 2026, City Council meeting but was not heard due to time constraints. This special meeting has been called to provide dedicated time for the City Council and the public to fully review, consider, and engage this item.

DISCUSSION:

The Streets Master Plan (Attachment 01 - Report, Attachment 02 - Appendices A - H; Attachment 03 - Council Presentation) provides a comprehensive, multimodal framework intended to enhance safety, connectivity, and accessibility across the city. The Plan identifies a broad range of improvements, including:
• 46 bicycle facility projects
• 39 pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements
• 9 roadway extension and bridge projects
These improvements are designed to address network gaps, improve access to key destinations such as schools and downtown, and reduce reliance on Main Street by providing alternative routes.

Projects were prioritized based on safety, connectivity, community input, and feasibility. The prioritization framework is intended to guide decision-making while maintaining flexibility, recognizing that implementation will depend on funding availability and evolving City priorities.

The Plan also includes transportation operations analysis of key network improvements, demonstrating that major projects such as the Adams Street Extension and Oak Avenue Extension would improve traffic flow and reduce congestion along Main Street by providing additional connections (Attachment 02 - Appendix F, pdf p.104 of 912).

It should be noted that the SMP includes Bicycle and Pedestrian circulation improvements previously adopted through various plans. It does not include improvements delineated in the November 2022 Walking Routes, Trails and Publicly Accessible Open Space Plan vetted through the Parks & Recreation Commission. The 2026 Parks, Recreation & Trails Master Plan, scheduled to be heard/accepted by the City Council in May 2026, does include incorporation of elements of the 2022 plan.

Public Outreach and Comments:

The public review period of the DRAFT Plan was conducted from January 22 through February 16, 2026, and was advertised through the City’s website, newsletter, and social media channels. A total of 68 comments were received, with approximately 68 percent submitted by a single individual and the remainder distributed among community members (Attachment 04).

All comments were compiled into a formal comment matrix, reviewed by staff and the consultant team, and responded to individually. The majority of comments were addressed through clarification, confirmation of existing recommendations, or determined to be outside the scope of the Plan.

Several targeted updates were incorporated, including refinement of bicycle facility classifications in select locations, inclusion of daylighting recommendations consistent with AB 413, additional intersection improvements, and clarification of cost assumptions and ADArelated considerations. Certain comments were identified as implementation-level items and will be addressed during future project design and Capital Improvement Program development.

It should be noted that the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee heard the SMP at their March 4, 2026, meeting. While they provided a few comments on classifications of bikeways, they accepted the prioritization order noted in the Plan for bike and pedestrian improvements. Subsequently, they approved the following "formal action" to prioritize the roadway extensions as follows:
• Recommend the Adams Street Extension project rank highest as a priority. • Recommend the Oak Avenue Extension project rank lowest as a priority.

Funding and Implementation:

The Plan outlines a phased implementation approach, with near-term efforts focused on lowercost, high-impact safety improvements such as crossing enhancements, and longer-term efforts focused on more complex capital projects such as roadway extensions and bridge improvements.

Future implementation is anticipated to rely on a combination of General Fund resources, Measure U revenues, development impact fees, regional, state, and federal grants, and developer contributions. Acceptance of the Plan does not commit the City to specific expenditures but provides a framework for prioritizing projects and pursuing funding opportunities.

Next Steps:
• Develop a 20-year implementation strategy for Finance Committee and Council consideration, including defined and undefined sources of funding. • Update the City’s impact fee program based on Plan cost estimates. • Identify and pursue funding opportunities for priority projects. • Integrate Plan recommendations into the 5-year Capital Improvement Program, annual Budget and their respective annual updates.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Acceptance of the St. Helena Streets Master Plan is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378, as it represents a planning-level policy document and does not authorize construction. Individual projects identified in the Plan will undergo project-specific environmental review as required.

GOAL:

Goal 1: Strengthen Financial Sustainability
Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
ATTACHMENTS:

1. 00 - SMP_Resolution (Amended 4-30-2026)

2. 00 - SMP_Resolution redline (Amended 4-30-2026)

3. 01 - St Helena Streets Master Plan_March 2026

4. 02 - St Helena Streets Master Plan Appendices_March 2026-Collated

5. 03 - StHelena SMP_Council Adoption Presentation_Final

6. 04 - St Helena SMP-Jan 2026 Public Draft_Comment Matrix

7. Public Comment - Maria White-Calderon

8. Public Comment - Jeff Farmer (March 24, 2026)

9. Public Comment - Pat Kenealy (March 2026 ATSC Meeting)

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN (MAY 2026) AND DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO UTILIZE THE PLAN TO GUIDE FUTURE

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING, AND IMPLEMENTATION EFFORTS.

RECITALS
A. The City of St. Helena has developed the St. Helena Streets Master Plan (May 2026) to provide a comprehensive, coordinated framework for improving transportation, circulation, and mobility throughout the city; and
B. The Plan consolidates prior planning efforts, technical analysis, and community input into a single document intended to guide future decision-making, capital improvement planning, and funding strategies; and
C. The Plan identifies a network of bicycle, pedestrian, roadway, and bridge improvements intended to enhance safety, connectivity, accessibility, and emergency access throughout the city; and
D. The City conducted public outreach, received comments, and prepared a comment matrix documenting responses and incorporated revisions; and E. Acceptance of the Plan does not constitute approval of specific projects, funding or project priorities, or commit the City to funding or construction, but establishes a long-term planning framework; and
F. Individual projects identified in the Plan will undergo future City Council review and environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

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

1. The City Council hereby accepts the St. Helena Streets Master Plan (May 2026).

2. The City Council directs staff to utilize the Plan to guide but not mandate development and priorities of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) including the need for further analysis of categories and priorities for projects based on actual service level needs and priority for funding, funding strategies, and implementation planning.

3. The City Council affirms that acceptance of the Plan does not constitute approval of or need for specific projects or availability of funding or commitments to the projects in the Plan.

4. The City Council finds that this action is not a project under CEQA pursuant to Section 15378.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on May 5, 2026, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring:

Vice Mayor Deasy:

Council Member Barak:

Council Member Spadarotto:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradley, City Clerk

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN (MAY 2026) AND DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO UTILIZE THE PLAN TO GUIDE FUTURE

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING, AND IMPLEMENTATION EFFORTS.

RECITALS
A. The City of St. Helena has developed the St. Helena Streets Master Plan (May 2026) to provide a comprehensive, coordinated framework for improving transportation, circulation, and mobility throughout the city; and
B. The Plan consolidates prior planning efforts, technical analysis, and community input into a single document intended to guide future decision-making, capital improvement planning, and funding strategies; and
C. The Plan identifies a network of bicycle, pedestrian, roadway, and bridge improvements intended to enhance safety, connectivity, accessibility, and emergency access throughout the city; and
D. The City conducted public outreach, received comments, and prepared a comment matrix documenting responses and incorporated revisions; and E. Acceptance of the Plan does not constitute approval of specific projects, funding or project priorities, or commit the City to funding or construction, but establishes a long-term planning framework; and
F. Individual projects identified in the Plan will undergo future City Council review and environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

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

1. The City Council hereby accepts the St. Helena Streets Master Plan (May 2026).

2. The City Council directs staff to utilize the Plan to guide but not mandate development and priorities of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) including the need for further analysis of categories and priorities for projects based on actual service level needs and priority for funding, funding strategies, and implementation planning.

3. The City Council affirms that acceptance of the Plan does not constitute approval of or need for specific projects or availability of funding or commitments to the projects in the Plan.

4. The City Council finds that this action is not a project under CEQA pursuant to Section 15378.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on May 5, 2026, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring:

Vice Mayor Deasy:

Council Member Barak:

Council Member Spadarotto:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradley, City Clerk

St. Helena
Streets
Master Plan
March 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ST, HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
Executive Summary
Key Plan Elements
Network Vision and
Proposed Projects
At the core of the Plan is a comprehensive set of proposed bicycle, pedestrian, roadway extension, and bridge
projects that define the City’s active transportation and street network. Developed from prior plans, technical
analysis, and community input, these projects represent a citywide vision for improving connectivity, safety, and access and include:
+ Bicycle facilities: 46 proposed projects, including
Class I shared-use paths, Class II bike lanes, and
Class III bike boulevards (Class III rural bike routes are noted but not included in the mapped or prioritized
facility list)
+ Crossing Improvements: 39 intersections
recommended for safety and accessibility upgrades
+ Roadway extensions and bridge projects: 9 projects,
including 7 extensions and 2 bridge projects intended
to improve connectivity and emergency access
Together, these projects address long-standing challenges such as reliance on Main Street, limited east–west
connections, constrained bridges, and gaps in the street network.

Project Prioritization
Recognizing that not all projects can be implemented
at once, the Plan includes a prioritization process that uses multiple metrics, including community input, to
identify projects likely to provide the greatest benefit within each project type. Projects are prioritized within their respective categories, such as bicycle facilities, intersection improvements, and roadway extensions or
bridges, and are not ranked against one another across
categories.

Overview
The St. Helena Streets Master Plan provides a
coordinated framework for improving how people
move around St. Helena, whether walking, biking,
or driving. The Plan responds to long-standing
challenges such as limited east–west connectivity,
constrained bridges, gaps in the bicycle and
pedestrian network, and heavy reliance on Main
Street/Highway 29 for both local and regional travel
Building on the City’s General Plan and previously
adopted plans and studies, the Streets Master
Plan consolidates prior recommendations, new
technical analysis, and community input into a single,
comprehensive document. It is intended to guide
decision-making, funding, and interdepartmental
coordination over time.

The Plan documents existing conditions and identifies
a comprehensive set of bicycle, pedestrian, roadway
extension, and bridge projects to improve connectivity, accessibility, and safety. Projects are evaluated using multiple performance metrics, alongside community
input, through a prioritization process, with select
projects advanced to conceptual design. The Plan
also includes planning-level cost opinions, funding
and implementation guidance, and toolkits to support
placemaking and green infrastructure.

Together, these components provide a roadmap for
City staff, elected officials, and partners to support
capital programming, pursue grants, coordinate with
development and infrastructure projects, and adapt to
evolving conditions, funding, and priorities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ST, HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
Project cost was not included as a prioritization metric, allowing projects to be evaluated based on need, benefit, and alignment with community and network objectives
rather than implementation complexity.

Prioritization results are intended to support decisionmaking, not dictate construction sequencing, and to identify projects that may warrant early coordination,
further study, or strategic investment.

Transportation Operations
Synchro Analysis
To build on the prioritization process, the Plan includes a Synchro-based transportation operations analysis of three major network concepts: the Adams Street Extension, Oak Avenue Extension, and Pope Street Bridge. This analysis provides additional context on how new connections
could improve congestion, traffic flow, and intersection performance, particularly along Main Street. Key findings indicate that all three concepts would provide congestion relief by creating alternative routes. Among them, the Oak Avenue Extension offers the greatest overall operational improvement. While this analysis did not determine
project rankings, it helps illustrate the relative impact of these major investments.

Cost Opinions and Implementation
Considerations
Planning-level cost opinions are included for all proposed bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvement projects
to help the City understand relative costs across
facility types and the tradeoffs between incremental
improvements and more capital-intensive investments.

More detailed cost opinions were prepared for the
Adams Street Extension and Spring Street Class III bike boulevard, which were advanced to conceptual design.

In addition, planning-level cost estimates for the Oak
Avenue Extension were developed by updating the 2001
Highway 29 Specific Plan estimates to reflect current
phasing considerations and costs in today’s dollars.

Beyond project identification and prioritization, the Plan provides tools to support implementation over time,
including funding strategy guidance, CEQA pathway
considerations, and placemaking and green infrastructure toolkits. Together, these elements enable the City to
advance projects incrementally and strategically while
maintaining alignment with the Plan’s long-term vision.

Conceptual Design
The Adams Street Extension and Spring Street Class III
bike boulevard projects were advanced to conceptual
design to demonstrate how Plan recommendations
can transition toward implementation. These projects
were selected because they ranked highly within their
respective prioritization categories, play critical roles in the citywide network, and reflect strong community
interest or long-standing planning objectives. Conceptual designs include example cross sections, intersection
treatments, and planning-level cost opinions to support future funding applications and coordination with partner agencies.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ST, HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
Crossing Improvements
Pedestrian crossing projects were prioritized based on safety history, pedestrian activity, access to schools and parks, network connectivity, and consistency with prior planning efforts. Top-ranked crossings are concentrated along Main Street, reflecting its role as the city’s primary commercial and civic corridor and its high pedestrian activity and injury history; several intersections, including Main Street at Grayson Avenue, Madrona Avenue, Spring Street, and Elmhurst Avenue, have been repeatedly identified in prior plans. Other prioritized crossings are located near schools and neighborhood connectors, where targeted improvements can significantly enhance safety and accessibility for students and everyday users. Proposed improvements at Spring Street at Hudson also received a score of 4 but are not listed above, as they are part of the broader Spring Street bike boulevard concept detailed elsewhere in the Plan.

Score Intersection Improvement Cost
6 Main St at Grayson Ave Update crosswalk to high visibility $4K 5 Pope St at Allison Ave Install speed reduction treatments on both approaches of Pope St at Allison Ave. Consider vegetation management to improve visibility. $19K
Prioritization Results Summary
Bicycle Facilities
Proposed bicycle projects were prioritized based on access to key destinations (particularly schools and parks), safety, network connectivity and comfort, existing activity, and community support. Class I shared-use paths consistently ranked highest due to their ability to provide low-stress, all-ages-and-abilities connections and close major gaps in the citywide active transportation network; priority corridors such as Sulphur Creek and the Napa River offer the potential for city-shaping, continuous off-street routes. Class III bike boulevards and Class II bike lanes are generally lower cost and less complex to implement and play an important role in improving neighborhood connectivity and access to schools and downtown destinations. Of the eight top-ranked bicycle projects, three are on-street facilities, two Class III bike boulevards and one Class II bike lane. Several additional medium-high-ranking projects (score of 4), including Spring Street, also feature Class III and Class II improvements, but are not included in the list below.

Score Street/Trail Name Begins Ends Proposed Facility Low Cost*
High
Cost*
7 Sulphur Creek Trail Sulphur Springs Ave Napa River Class I Shared-Use Path $15.8M 6 S Crane Ave Grayson Ave Sulphur Springs Ave Class II Bike Lanes $261K $1.4M 6 Adams St Railroad Ave Allyn Ave Class III Bike Boulevard $366K $846K 6 Napa River Trail
St Helena city limit near
wastewater treatment
plant
St Helena city limit
(Deer Park Rd / Lower
Reservoir Trail)
Class I Shared-Use Path $21.9M
6 Adams St (pending future
extension) Railroad Ave Silverado Trail Class I Shared-Use Path $59.1M^ 5 Crane Park Path (to La
Quinta Way) Grayson Ave Sulphur Springs Ave Class I Shared-Use Path $3.6M 5 Library Lane Path Adams St Vine Trail (along RR
corridor) Class I Shared-Use Path $939K
5 College Ave Pope St Proposed class I facility at
SE end of College Ave Class III Bike Boulevard $140K $324K *The low and high cost range for Class II bike lanes and Class III bike boulevards reflects uncertainty in the extent of roadway modifications required.

For bike lanes, improvements may range from striping and signage to more substantial changes such as curb relocation or drainage adjustments; for bike boulevards, costs may vary from minor traffic calming measures, such as speed humps, to more substantial treatments like curb extensions. ^Reflects full cost of roadway extension.

This summary presents the top-ranking projects by category and project type based on the Streets Master Plan prioritization analysis. These results highlight projects that performed most strongly across the evaluation criteria.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ST, HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN
* Inclusive of both phases of the Oak Avenue extension (Mitchell Drive to Charter Oak Avenue and Charter Oak Avenue to Grayson Avenue) Score Roadway Extension or Bridge Project Cost
5 Adams St Extension to Silverado Trail $59.1M
4 Oak Ave Extension to Grayson Ave* Mitchell Dr to Charter Oak Ave: $37.2M Charter Oak Ave to Grayson Ave: $15.4M
4 Pope Street Bridge Realignment n/a
3 Starr Ave extension north to Adams St n/a
3 Mills Ln extension to Silverado Trail n/a
3 Pratt Ave Bridge Realignment n/a
Roadway Extension and Bridge Projects
Roadway extension and bridge projects were prioritized based on feasibility, community support, and their functional role in the overall street network. The Adams Street Extension emerged as the top-ranking project due to its ability to improve east–west connectivity, support planned development, enhance emergency access, and relieve pressure on Main Street, with the Oak Avenue Extension also ranking highly. A separate Synchro-based transportation operations analysis demonstrated that the Adams Street Extension, Oak Avenue Extension, and Pope Street Bridge concepts would all help reduce congestion on Main Street by providing alternative routes. While this analysis did not determine project rankings, it provides important context supporting the long-term transportation value of these investments. Given the complexity of estimating costs for major roadway and bridge projects, planning-level cost opinions were developed only for the Adams Street and Oak Avenue extensions as part of this effort.

Implementation and Funding Strategies
The Streets Master Plan outlines a mix of funding tools to support implementation, recognizing that no single source will fund all projects. Implementation will rely on local revenues (such as General Fund allocations, transportation and parks impact fees, and developer-required improvements), regional sources including Measure U sales tax revenues administered by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, and state and federal grants. Projects will advance in phases based on funding availability, grant cycles, development activity, and inclusion in the City’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Recommended strategies include layering funding sources, aligning project readiness with funding opportunities, and bundling projects, such as corridor, school access, or safety packages, to improve grant competitiveness and delivery efficiency. Near- and mid-term efforts will prioritize bicycle and pedestrian intersection projects, while larger roadway and bridge projects will advance more gradually, beginning with feasibility, environmental review, and right-ofway coordination before construction as longer-term funding becomes available.

Score Intersection Improvement Cost
5 Hillview Pl and Spring
Mountain Rd
Install stop-control on all approaches and curb extensions on all corners, upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility, and upgrade all curb ramps to be ADAcompliant. $67K 4 Main St at Crinella Ct Install RRFB with advanced warning signs on either north or south approach $23K 4 Main St at Madrona Ave Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility; upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant; install curb extensions
4 Main St at Adams St Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility; upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant; install curb extensions on both sides of Main St crossings $63K
4 Main St at Spring St Install curb extensions and RRFB on southeast approach; upgrade all curb ramps to be ADA compliant $104K
4 Pope St at Starr Ave Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility; upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant $17K 4 Hillview Pl at Middle School Upgrade to high-visibility crosswalk and upgrade ramp to be ADA-compliant; install curb extensions and RRFB $32K

Information contained in this document is for planning purposes and should not be used for final design of any project.

Contents
Project Overview .......................4
Engagement Summary..............9
Phase 1 ..................................................12 Phase 2 ..................................................13 Phase 3 ..................................................14 Existing Conditions...................15
Needs Assessment...............................34
Network-wide
Recommendations .................. 37
Proposed Bicycle Facilities..................39
Crossing Assessment and Proposed
Improvements.......................................42
Proposed Roadway Extensions and
Bridge Projects .....................................46 Implementation
Considerations ........................ 48
Project Prioritization............................50
Funding Strategies ...............................55
CEQA Pathways.....................................56
Stormwater and Utilities
Coordination..........................................57 Key Projects ............................ 60
Spring Street.........................................62 Adams Street Extension ......................67
Oak Avenue Extension..........................73
Appendices
A: Streetscape Placemaking and Green Infrastructure Toolkits B: Community Engagement Summary Memo
C: Project Prioritization Methodology and Detailed Results D: Network-wide Cost Opinions
E: Project Cost Opinions
F: Synchro Analysis for Key Extension and Bridge Projects G: Stormwater and Utilities Technical Memo
H: Funding Strategies Memo

List of Figures
Figure 1: St. Helena Planning Area ....................................... 7 Figure 2: Functional Road Classification............................. 17 Figure 3: City Road Classification......................................... 18 Figure 4: Roadway Extension Projects.

Source: St. Helena General Plan Update 2040. .................. 18 Figure 5: St Helena Street Types. Source: St. Helena
General Plan Update 2040..................................................... 19 Figure 6: 2019 NVTA Countywide Bicycle Plan -
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network.............................. 21 Figure 7: Bikeway Classification Typical Cross sections... 22 Figure 8: Sidewalk Network. Source: St. Helena
General Plan Update 2040..................................................... 24 Figure 9: Key Destinations .................................................... 26 Figure 10: Bicycle Counts...................................................... 28 Figure 11: Pedestrian Counts ............................................... 29 Figure 12: Active Modes Injury Crashes.............................. 31 Figure 13: Assumed Level of Traffic Stress........................ 32 Figure 14: Proposed Bicycle Facilities................................. 41 Figure 15: Proposed Intersection Improvements .............. 45 Figure 16: Proposed Roadway Extension and Bridge
Projects.................................................................................... 47 Figure 17: St. Helena Flood Zones. Source: St. Helena
General Plan Update 2040..................................................... 59 Figure 18: Proposed Spring Street Key Plan...................... 64 Figure 19: Proposed Spring Street Typical Cross
Sections ................................................................................... 65 Figure 20: Proposed Spring Street Typical Cross
Sections and Intersection Improvements ........................... 66 Figure 21: Proposed Adam Street Extension Alignment
and Key Plan............................................................................ 69 Figure 22: Proposed Adam Street Extension Alignment
Typical Cross Section............................................................. 70 Figure 23: Adam Street Extension Proposed Designs
for Key Intersections.............................................................. 71 Figure 24: Proposed Oak Street Extension Typical
Cross Section, Highway 29 Specific Plan, 2001.................. 76 Figure 25: Proposed Oak Street Extension Typical
Cross Section, Highway 29 Specific Plan, 2005.................. 76 List of Tables
Table 1: Active Modes Count Data......................................... 29 Table 2: Proposed Bicycle Facilities..................................... 39 Table 3: Proposed Crossing Improvements........................ 42 Table 4: Proposed Roadway Extension and Bridge
Projects.................................................................................... 46 Table 5: Proposed Project Prioritization Criteria ............... 50 Table 6: Prioritized Bicycle Facilities................................... 51 Table 7: Prioritized Crossing Improvements ...................... 53 Table 8: Prioritized Roadway Extension and Bridge
Projects.................................................................................... 54 Table 9: Probable cost ranges for proposed bikeways
by facility type ......................................................................... 55 Table 10: Potential CEQA Pathways by project type .......... 56

4 | CITY OF ST. HELENA
Project Overview
1

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 5
Project Overview
The St. Helena Streets Master Plan was led
by the City of St. Helena to establish a clear
path forward for creating a street network
that supports safe, connected, and vibrant
mobility for all users, whether walking,
biking, driving, or taking transit.

The plan builds on previous planning efforts and unifies multiple studies, reports, and initiatives into a cohesive vision for the future of St. Helena’s streets and circulation system. Importantly, it also integrates the City Council– approved alignment of the Vine Trail through St. Helena.

Selection of the Vine Trail route marked a major milestone for the community and informed the the reprioritization of projects identified in past transportation plans.

This report presents the key outcomes of the Streets
Master Plan, including:
+ Network-wide recommendations grounded in previous
planning reports and refined through new technical
analysis and community feedback.
+ Network-wide implementation and financing strategy.
+ Targeted recommendations for key priority projects,
including conceptual designs and planning-level cost
opinions.

Plan Goals
+ Enhance multimodal options for all users, prioritizing connectivity, accessibility and safety as key guiding
principles.
+ Plan for future growth, accounting for citywide
projections in the General Plan and planned
subdivision projects.
+ Develop preliminary implementation strategies to
guide investment and delivery of improvements over
time.
+ Strengthen local and regional partnerships to support collaboration and leverage funding opportunities.

Guiding Principles
+ Connectivity: Ensure that all modes of transportation, motor vehicles, public transit, bicycles, and walking/
rolling, are well-integrated and facilitate connected
and convenient travel throughout the city.
+ Accessibility: Help ensure that essential locations,
such as schools, parks, and downtown, are easily and
comfortably accessible to everyone, regardless of
ability or mode of transportation.
+ Safety: Ground active transportation
recommendations in current safety data and prioritize
low-stress, comfortable facilities for people biking
and walking/rolling, especially vulnerable users like
school-aged children.

Foundational
Plans and Studies
The following page provides a high-level summary of
the key plans, studies, and reports that informed the
development of the St. Helena Streets Master Plan.

6 | Project Overview
Napa Countywide
Pedestrian Plan
August 2016
Napa Countywide Pedestrian Plan - NVTA (2016)
This Plan was created to address pedestrian needs and
opportunities and to establish a policy framework and
implementation plan to enhance pedestrian mobility and safety throughout all Napa County communities, including a dedicated chapter for St. Helena (Chapter 7).

St. Helena General Plan Update 2040 (2019)
Section 5 of the General Plan, the Circulation Element, sets the framework for focusing on decreasing automobile use and vehicle miles traveled while strengthening pedestrian and bicycle connections. Proposed bicycle network recommendations were developed in coordination with the Napa Countywide Bike Plan (2019).

Napa Countywide Bike Plan - NVTA (2019)
The Countywide Bike Plan evaluates Napa County’s bicycling conditions, covering both incorporated and unincorporated areas.

It summarizes current facilities, policies, and standards, identifies deficiencies, and suggests improvements. Chapter 7 focuses on St. Helena. An update to this plan (the 2026 Napa County Active Transportation Plan) is currently underway.

Active Transportation and SRTS Plan (2021)
This plan reviews citywide conditions and provides short-term recommendations for Spring Street and Madrona Avenue in St.

Helena to enhance safety for the 2021-2022 school year.

Napa County Walk Audit Reports (2022)
The goal of the Walk Audit Report is to identify, evaluate, prioritize, and offer solutions to infrastructure and non-infrastructure barriers to students safely walking and biking to school in Napa County and St. Helena.

Vine Trail Alignment Study:

Yountville to St. Helena (2022)
The alignment study updates and expands two previous studies on a Class I trail from Yountville to St. Helena, incorporating the current Vine Trail alignment study by BKF Engineers, approved by the St. Helena City Council. A council action on May 14, 2024 slightly revised the alignment presented in this plan.

NVTA Vision Zero Plan (2023)
The Vision Zero Plan establishes a Safe System, data-driven framework to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030, with emphasis on equity and prioritizing improvements on the countywide High-Injury Network for projects like safer crossings, bikeways, and speed management.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 7
Figure 1: St. Helena Planning Area
Project Area
The St. Helena Streets Master Plan covers the entire city, excluding the Downtown Specific Plan area (outlined in
red on the project map). The Downtown planning effort
was put on pause during this process. Future downtown
planning efforts and recommendations for this area
should be coordinated with Streets Master Plan to ensure consistency and alignment across the city’s street and
transportation network.

8 | Project Overview
Process
The St. Helena Streets Master Plan was developed
over the course of approximately eighteen months. The
process began with comprehensive data collection and
analysis, incorporating both newly gathered information and a review of existing plans. This analysis informed
the development of network-wide recommendations and
the creation of a prioritization methodology to evaluate the relative impact and importance of proposed projects.

From this framework, a selection of priority projects was advanced to conceptual design.

Implementation strategies were then developed,
including cost opinions, funding approaches, and a
green infrastructure and placemaking toolkit. In parallel, a project website was launched early in the process
to support ongoing communication, and a community
engagement plan guided outreach throughout the
planning effort. A draft plan was prepared to gather
feedback from stakeholders and the public, followed by a final plan that incorporated this input and established a roadmap for implementation.

Technical/Existing
Conditions Studies
Selection of
Priority Projects
Network-Wide
Recommendations
Draft
Plan
Final
Plan
Priority Projects
Conceptual Designs
Toolkit
Development
Stakeholder Interviews ATSC Meeting Community
Touchpoint 2
Community
Touchpoint 3
Community Touchpoint 1 Council Worksession
Spring - Summer
2024
Fall - Winter
2024
Winter - Spring
2025
Summer - Fall
2025
Fall - Winter
2026
ATSC Meeting

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 9
Engagement
Summary
2

10 | Engagement Summary
This chapter provides a high-level overview
of the community engagement conducted for
the Streets Master Plan. Engagement aimed
to reach a broad cross-section of St. Helena
residents, stakeholders, and agency partners
through multiple formats. Detailed findings
are not included in this chapter but are
incorporated throughout the document, where
relevant.

Activities included public workshops, online surveys,
interactive mapping tools, stakeholder interviews, smallgroup discussions, and pop-up events across the city.

These efforts gave participants opportunities to share
travel experiences, identify areas of concern, respond to early concepts, and offer input on potential improvements.

Community input played a critical role in shaping the plan, informing the identification of needs, refinement of project concepts, and prioritization of improvements. Engagement also helped validate findings from the Existing Conditions analysis and prior planning efforts. For a more detailed outline of project engagement see Appendix B.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 11
Engagement Overview
Introduction
This section describes the outreach and engagement
efforts for the St. Helena Streets Master Plan, which are two distinct, but related activities:

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

Engagement is interactive. During engagement,
information flows between City staff, partner
organizations and agencies, and community members.

During engagement, stakeholders and community
members are active participants.

Goals
The goals of the outreach and engagement process were to:
+ Gather public feedback to inform plan
recommendations.
+ Energize and engage stakeholders and residents
familiar with St. Helena’s planning efforts, so they can become active partners and advocates throughout and
beyond the project.

Phasing
Outreach and engagement for the St. Helena Streets
Master Plan took place over the course of eighteen
months. The process was divided into three phases, each with distinct goals, strategies, and materials.

12 | Engagement Summary
Phase 1
August-November 2024
Goals
+ Get input on challenges related to the existing road
network, including bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
+ Determine which of the proposed network-wide
projects are the most critical and should be prioritized for further analysis and design.
+ Share findings from the technical studies, particularly the proposed transportation infrastructure projects
(sourced from previous planning efforts and
recommended by the project team).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Overview
Outreach
+ Emails distributed to promote the project
and encourage participation in Stakeholder
Interviews.
+ Project landing page launched on City website.

Engagement Touchpoints
+ 2 x Pop-up events (at the St. Helena Farmer’s
Market and the Harvest Festival), during which
the project team spoke to approximately 80
people who live, work, and/or have a child who
goes to school in St. Helena.
+ 3 x Focus groups with stakeholders and agency
partners (12 participants in total).
+ One-on-one interviews with planning
commissioners and councilpersons.

A booth was set up at the 2024 Harvest Festival to solicit feedback on proposed projects
Community members vote on their priority projects at the 2024 +Harvest Festival
Key Questions
+ What transportation and streetscape projects or
improvements do you think should be prioritized for
the city?
+ Are there any challenges you face while navigating
the city, and what changes would you like to see to
address them?
+ Which aspects of the city’s current transportation
and mobility infrastructure do you value and believe
should be maintained?

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 13
Phase 2
November 2024-April 2025
Goals
+ Provide a high-level refresher of the project purpose, scope, and timeline.
+ Present the full list of network-wide prioritized
projects.
+ Present and collect feedback on initial conceptual
designs for Adams Street Extension and Spring
Street.

Key Questions
+ Do you agree with the list of priority projects by
type, including bikeways, crossings, and roadway
extension/bridge projects?
+ What feedback on draft design concepts do you have?
What’s working and what could be improved?
Overview
Outreach
+ Flyer distributed to advertise the in-person
Public Workshop.
+ Emails distributed to promote the project and
encourage attendance at the Public Workshop.

Engagement Touchpoints
+ 1 x Active Transportation Steering Committee
Meeting.
+ 1 x City Council Meeting.
+ 1 x In-person Public Workshop.
2025 Public Workshop
Flyer Advertising the Public Workshop

14 | Engagement Summary
Phase 3
April 2025-March 2026
Goals
+ Share the Final Conceptual Designs and Draft Plan
with the community.
+ Gather feedback on the Final Conceptual Designs and
Draft Plan to inform revisions before preparing the
Final Plan.

Key Questions
+ Are there any suggested refinements or corrections
to the Draft Plan content, including the network
recommendations, prioritization, or conceptual
designs?
+ Is any information in the Draft Plan unclear or missing that should be clarified before the plan is finalized?
Overview
Outreach
+ The Draft Plan for Public Comment was
advertised through the following channels:
+ City newsletter
+ City homepage
+ Public Works homepage
+ Streets Master Plan page
+ City social media channels
Engagement Touchpoints
+ Interactive Draft Plan (Online PDF) for Public
Comment (Open: 1/22/26-2/16/26)
+ 2 x Active Transportation Steering Committee
Meetings.

The Public Draft Plan was advertised on the City’s Public Works homepage

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 15
Existing
Conditions
3

16 | Existing Conditions
This chapter assesses St. Helena’s street
network with a focus on connectivity,
accessibility, and safety for all users.

These existing conditions inform the
recommendations presented later in the plan.

St. Helena’s transportation system is shaped by physical, operational, and multimodal constraints that affect
connectivity, accessibility, and safety. Natural features such as the Napa River, Sulphur Creek, and surrounding
hills create dead ends, network gaps, and limited
alternatives to Main Street, concentrating traffic on the primary corridor and reducing redundancy for daily travel and emergency response.

Structural limitations, including narrow bridges at Pope Street and Pratt Avenue, constrained right-of-way, and
gaps in the walking and bicycling network, further limit safe and accessible mobility. Many bridges lack space for dedicated active transportation facilities, and local streets often lack continuous sidewalks or low-stress bicycle
routes, creating challenges for residents, visitors, and emergency responders.

At the same time, St. Helena’s outdoor opportunities,
compact size, and walkable downtown support a strong
culture of walking and biking. The city also sits within a growing recreational trail network, including the Napa
Valley Vine Trail, offering residents and visitors increasing opportunities to travel by bike and enjoy the region’s
scenic setting.

Understanding these conditions is essential to the
development of the Streets Master Plan. The concepts
in later chapters respond directly to these challenges by expanding east–west connections, improving safe walking and bicycling options, addressing traffic congestion, and strengthening emergency access. This includes several
ambitious roadway extension and bridge projects that aim to overcome long-standing physical barriers and create a more resilient, connected network for all users.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 17
Street Network
Located in the heart of Napa Valley, St. Helena is known for its scenic vineyards, charming downtown area, and vibrant wine culture. St. Helena is composed of a small network of streets that surround its compact downtown (Figure 2).

Railroad tracks that serve the privately owned Napa Valley Wine Train bisect the city. Figure 2 shows the functional road classification in St. Helena. Highway 29/Main Street is the primary access route through the city and serves as a regional connector, along with the Silverado Trail. These two arterials connect St. Helena to the rest of Napa Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area. A dense network of
collectors and local streets provide connectivity between residential and commercial areas.

Figure 3 shows the City’s road classification, per the City’s General Plan.1 The Plan identifies typical cross sections for each street typology (Figure 5). These typologies were adopted as part of the Plan Update to underscore the
importance of accommodating a diverse range of travel
modes and integrating Complete Streets principles into
the City’s overall network development strategy.

An assessment of the road network identified several
barriers that impede efficient circulation and mobility within the city:
+ Dead-end streets, while beneficial for limiting through traffic and enhancing neighborhood privacy, reduce
overall connectivity and circulation, increasing
travel distances and potentially delaying emergency
response. This is especially true for “open space rural streets” like Fulton Lane, Mills Lane, and Dowdell
Lane, which could otherwise link Highway 29 and
Silverado Trail.

Figure 2: Functional Road Classification
1 Chaix Lane is shown in the General Plan as an Open Space Rural Street. However, 2023 research into access rights serving the City’s Wastewater Treatment & Reclamation Facility (WWTRF) determined that it is a private roadway for which the WWTRF holds access rights. Accordingly, Chaix Lane has been removed from Figure 3.

18 | Existing Conditions
+ Bridges on Pope Street and Pratt Avenue are narrow
two-lane crossings that create bottlenecks during
peak periods and cannot safely accommodate bicycle
or pedestrian facilities within the existing right-of-way.

Highway 29/Main Street’s dual role as both a regional
connector and a downtown Main Street can lead to
conflicting traffic flows, congestion, and inefficiencies in managing local and through traffic.

Roadway Extensions and Bridge Projects
Several long-standing street extension and bridge
concepts, such as the Adams Street extension over the
Napa River and the Oak Street extension over Sulphur
Creek, have been identified in previous planning efforts as potential additions to the network. While unbuilt, their intended purpose helps frame existing conditions. Some
would cross major waterways that limit circulation and
concentrate traffic on a few streets, while others would extend streets without new water crossings; together, they could reduce pinch points, improve network redundancy,
and expand options for access and emergency response.
5 Crane
Park
Wappo
Park
Jacob
Meily
Park
Lyman
Park
¬«4A
¬«2B
¬«3
¬«2C
¬«4B
¬«2A
¬«1
Lodi Ln
York Ln
·|}29
Silverado Trail
Fawn Park Rd
Deer Park Rd
Knoll Pl
Charter Oak Ave
Allison Ave
Charter Oak Ave
Paseo Grand Dr
R
Chiles Ave
ailroad Ave
Stockton St
Spring Mountain Rd
Palmer Dr
M adron a Ave Sylvaner Ave
Mccormick St
Ho well Mountai n Rd
Meadowwood Ln
·|}29
Hudson Ave
Silverado Trail
College Ave
Boyson Ln
Del Rio Ct
Money Way
Edwards St
El Bonita Ave
Laguna Seca
Stockton St
Elmhurst Ave
Hollis Ln
N Crane Ave
La Fata St
Valley View St
Pinot Way
Mitchell Dr
Kearney St
Starr Ave
Hudson Ave
Vineyard Ave
Scott St
Park St
Mccorkle Ave
Dean York Ln
Allyn Ave
Tainter St
Fir Hill Dr
Hillview Pl
Grayson Ave
n
Dowdell Ln
Cr
Hunt Ave
Oak Ave
Vallejo St
Adams St
Fulton Ln
Madrona Ave
Pratt Ave
Mills Ln
Pope St
Chaix Ln
Spring St
B gi Rock Rd
Potential Future Road
Figure 3: City Road Classification
Figure 4: Roadway Extension Projects.

Source: St. Helena General Plan Update 2040.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 5-19
Crane
Park
Wappo
Park
Jacob
Meily
Park
Lyman
Park
¬«4A
¬«2B
¬«3
¬«2C
¬«4B
¬«2A
¬«1
Yo
·|}29
Knoll Pl
Charter Oak Ave
Allison Ave
Charter Oak Ave
Paseo Grand Dr
R
Chiles Ave
ailroad Ave
Stockton St
Spring Mountain Rd
Palmer Dr
M adron a Ave Sylvaner Ave
White Sulphur Springs Rd Sul ph ur S prings Ave
Mccormick St
Contento Ln
Ho well Mountai n Rd
Meadowwood Ln
·|}29
Hudson Ave
Silverado Trail
College Ave
Boyson Ln
Del Rio Ct
MountainView Ave
Money Way
Edwards St
Vineland Ave
El Bonita Ave
Laguna Seca
Victoria Ln
Stockton St
Elmhurst Ave
Hollis Ln
N Crane Ave
La Fata St
W heeler Ln
Valley View St
Pinot Way
Tokay Ln
Garden Ave
Mitchell Dr
Kearney St
Starr Ave
Hudson Ave
Vineyard Ave
Scott St
Park St
Mccorkle Ave
Melrose Ln
Dean York Ln
Allyn Ave
Tainter St
Fir Hill Dr
Hillview Pl
Grayson Ave
Inglewood Ave
Stice Ln
White Ln
Dowdell Ln
Crane Ave
Lewelling Ln
Hunt Ave
Oak Ave
Vallejo St
Adams St
Zinfandel Ln
Fulton Ln
Madrona Ave
Pratt Ave
Mills Ln
Pope St
Silverado Trail
Chaix Ln
Spring St
Conn Vall e y Rd
B gi Rock Rd
Stanton Dr
Davis Ln
Potential Future Roadway Parks and Open Space
Urban Limit Line
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
Data Source: City of St. Helena, 2018; Napa County, 2018; Dyett & Bhatia, 2018 0 1,000 2,000 4,000Feet
City of St. Helena

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
¬«1 Starr Avenue extension north to
Adams Street
¬«2A College Avenue, Starr Avenue or
Allison Avenue extension to
Mills Lane
¬«2B
¬«2C
¬«3 Adams Street from its current
eastern terminus to Starr Avenue
¬«4A Extension to Silverado Trail,
by extending Adams Street ¬« or Mills Lane. 4B

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 19
Fulton Lane
Charter Oak Avenue
Allyn Avenue
Figure 5: St Helena Street Types. Source: St. Helena General Plan Update 2040.

Open Space/ Rural
Provides access to open space, vineyards,
agricultural areas, and rural residences.

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

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

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

20 | Existing Conditions
Oak Street
Main Street
Downtown/ Mixed Use
Accommodates all travel modes with
features promoting livability, including
wide sidewalks, traffic calming, and
bicycle lanes.

Regional Collector
This street type 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.

Figure 5 (cont): St Helena Street Types. Source: St. Helena General Plan Update 2040.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 21
Figure 6: 2019 NVTA Countywide Bicycle Plan - Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network Bicycle Network
As shown in Figure 6, St. Helena’s existing bicycle network consists of Class II bike lanes, small segments of Class I shared-use path segments, and Class III bike boulevards.

The map also highlights the Vine Trail (ie: the final leg between Yountville and St. Helena currently under design and environmental permitting), which will form a 47-
mile dual use corridor from the Vallejo Ferry Terminal to Calistoga. The segment north of Pratt Avenue opened in
August 2024. Once complete, the Vine Trail will serve as both a regional connector and a major walking and bicycling spine within St. Helena. Community feedback included
broad enthusiasm for the Vine Trail, and a strong desire to build a complete citywide bike network that connects to this regional facility.

The proposed bicycle network in Figure 6 reflects
recommendations in the 2019 NVTA Countywide Bicycle
Plan, with a few key exceptions. The Sulphur Creek Trail reflects the longer alignment from the St. Helena General Plan and proposed facilities along Main Street and along potential roadway extensions are shown as “Type TBD”
pending further coordination.

Several existing routes are recommended for upgrades to lower-stress facilities, such as converting the Pope Street Class II and III facilities into a Class I shared-use path.

New Class I paths along Sulphur Creek and the Napa River would further expand off-street connectivity, supported by a grid of Class II bike lanes and Class III routes on local and collector streets. The proposed network (Chapter
4) builds on the 2019 NVTA Plan and has been refined
through community feedback and technical analysis to
reflect current conditions and priorities.

22 | Existing Conditions
Figure 7: Bikeway Classification Typical Cross sections Bike Facility Classifications
St. Helena uses the Caltrans classification system for
bikeways, summarized below:

Class I: A shared-use path (see image, right) is completely separated from motor vehicle facilities by space or a
physical barrier, and typically is grade-separated (at
sidewalk level). It is identified with guide signing and may have pavement markings. An example of a shared-use
path is the existing Vine Trail north of Pratt Avenue.

Class II: A bike lane (see image, right) is a striped lane for one-way bike travel within the paved area of the street. A bike lane is identified by a painted (usually white) lane line, and sometimes other pavement markings, such as a bicycle or bicyclist icon. There are a few bike lanes in St. Helena, including on Pope Street and Silverado Trail.

Class II - Buffered Bike Lane: A variation of a bike lane is a buffered bike lane, which has an additional painted buffer space to provide increased separation between bicyclists and motorists. There are currently no buffered bike lanes in St. Helena.

Class III: A bike route is a route recommended for bicycle travel along an existing right-of-way which is typically signed but not striped.

Class III - Bike Boulevard: A variation of the bike route is the bike boulevard. This alternative facility is typically striped and includes additional traffic calming measures, such as traffic circles, speed cushions, and/or raised
crosswalks, and is typically recommended for streets
with lower speeds and lower vehicle volumes. Valley View Street is an example of a bike boulevard.

Class IV- Separated Bikeway: One- or two-way bikeways
with a physical barrier between the bicyclist and traffic lanes (e.g., bollards, curb, planters, etc.) There are
currently no existing or proposed separated bikeways in St. Helena.

Class I: Shared Use Path
Class II: Bike Lane
Class III: Bike Boulevard
Class II: Buffered Bike Lane
Class IV: Separated Bikeway

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 23
Bicycle Lanes (Class II) on Pope Street (2024)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) on Valley View Street (2024) Planned Class I trail facilities, like the Vine Trail, could anchor an expanded bicycle and pedestrian network (2024)

24 | Existing Conditions
Figure 8: Sidewalk Network. Source: St. Helena General Plan Update 2040.

Sidewalk Network
St. Helena’s sidewalk network was mapped as part of
the General Plan Update 2040 (Figure 8). The network is generally well-connected within the downtown area and
its immediate surroundings, where a robust system of
sidewalks supports pedestrian movement and access to
local amenities and services. However, in some areas near schools, sidewalks exist on only one side of the street, and the network diminishes significantly in the more rural and peripheral parts of the city. In these areas, sidewalks are sparse or absent, which can hinder pedestrian
access, safety, and connectivity. Furthermore, many
sidewalks have poor pavement quality and are in need of maintenance.

St. Helena has a strong tradition of recreational walking, with many residents using informal trails and paths
through agricultural land and greenfield areas. While
these routes are valued by the community, they are not
always accessible, legible, or comfortable for all users.

Over time, there may be opportunities to formalize
select informal paths, where appropriate and feasible,
to improve access, enhance comfort, and better connect
neighborhoods and destinations.

This combination of gaps near schools, limited facilities in rural areas, and reliance on informal paths underscores the need for targeted sidewalk and trail investments that expand safe, walkable access throughout the city and
encourage walking as a viable option for more residents.

Public Transit Service
Public transit options in St. Helena are limited and
primarily focused on regional rather than local travel. The city is served by The Vine’s Route 10, operated by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA), which runs along Highway 29 between Napa Valley College and Calistoga
with multiple daily trips. Route 10 provides connections to destinations throughout Napa Valley, including transfers at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center and the Redwood

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 25
Park and Ride, where riders can access Amtrak and BART
services.

Within the city, the St. Helena Shuttle offers door-todoor, on-demand service operated by Vine Transit/NVTA, running daily except Sunday.

Given these limited local options, community members
emphasized the importance of expanding transit service
throughout the valley to reduce reliance on personal
vehicles, particularly for students, parents, and the
workforce. Enhanced transit would complement the City’s bicycle and pedestrian initiatives by offering additional non-drive alternatives for everyday trips. The Vine Shuttle was frequently cited as a successful model, especially for helping students travel to St. Helena from surrounding
areas, demonstrating how improved and expanded
transit could further support mobility and reduce vehicle dependence citywide.

Continuous sidewalks on both sides of Adams Street near the downtown area
Sidewalk on only one side of street on Elmhurst Ave outside of Robert Louis Stevenson Middle School
Informal trails and walking paths between the terminus of Adams St and Napa River (left) and along Madrona Ave west of Main St (right)

26 | Existing Conditions
Figure 9: Key Destinations
Key Destinations
Ensuring that people of all ages and abilities can travel to key destinations by walking and biking is essential
for building a high-quality, accessible transportation
network. Identifying where these destinations are helps determine where safe, comfortable routes are most
needed and where improvements will have the greatest
impact. Key destinations were identified through desktop review, analysis of prior plans and upcoming development projects, and pedestrian and bicycle count data. Figure 9 shows their locations, including:
+ Downtown St. Helena (Main Street/Highway 29, from
Madrona Avenue to Mitchell Drive) commercial area
with shops, restaurants, and grocery stores
+ Schools
+ St. Helena Preschool for All and St. Helena High
School (shared campus on Grayson Avenue)
+ St. Helena Primary School (Grayson Avenue)
+ St. Helena Elementary School (Adams Street)
+ Robert Louis Stevenson Middle School (Hillview
Place)
+ St. Helena Montessori School (College Avenue)
+ Napa Valley College (College Avenue)
+ Parks (Only primary parks, listed in bold below, are
shown on the map)
+ Crane Park
+ Jacob Meily Park
+ Lyman Park
+ Mary Fryer Park
+ Mennen Park
+ Starr Baldwin Park
+ Stone Bridge Park
+ Wappo Park and Dog Park
+ Robert Louis Stevenson Museum and the St. Helena
Library (Library Lane)

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 27
Future and planned destinations are also critical to
establishing accessibility network-wide:
+ Potential new park sites (as identified in the 2040
General Plan Figure 12.1):
+ Sulphur Creek Park
+ Adams Street Park
+ Flood Control Project Open Space
+ Pratt Avenue Park
+ Lower Reservoir Park
+ Proposed building sites (expected to be significant trip generators):
+ Hunter Subdivision
+ 1001 Adams Street
+ Spring Grove
+ Spring Street Site 10
The future Hunter Subdivision project, located at the east end of Adams Street near the Museum and Library, is
poised to significantly impact local travel patterns. This new development will introduce 51 single-family units, 25 multi-family units, and 11 accessory dwelling units. The increased density in this area makes it a critical origin point for users of all travel modes. The hotel proposed at 1001 Adams Street, which includes 75 guest rooms and
13 for-sale residential units, will generate even more
trips, especially vehicle and pedestrian trips, which start and end on Adams Street. In addition, recent development applications for Spring Grove and Spring Street Site
10 underscore the scale of anticipated growth and the
importance of coordinated transportation planning in this area of St. Helena.

St. Helena Elementary School
Robert Louis Stevenson Middle School
Crane Park
Wappo Dog Park Downtown St. Helena

28 | Existing Conditions
Figure 10: Bicycle Counts
Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts
Bicycle and pedestrian counts help identify where biking and walking activity is concentrated—and where safety
and connectivity improvements will have the greatest
impact. These observations reveal how students and
residents are currently traveling and highlight locations where supportive infrastructure is most needed. As part of this planning effort in 2024, counts were collected at selected locations across the City, primarily near schools, during the 7–9 a.m. and 2–4 p.m. weekday peak periods.

Table 1 reflects totals across both time windows. “Other active mode” includes mobility devices, skateboards, and scooters.

Figures 10 and 11 show the total number of bicyclists and pedestrians were observed at each location (“other active modes” are grouped with pedestrians). Because counts
were limited to specific locations, they allow for relative comparison but do not represent citywide activity.

Findings from these counts suggest:
+ High pedestrian activity near the centrally located
middle and elementary schools may indicate
strong demand for safe walking routes in this area,
suggesting that improved crossings and sidewalk
connections around Adams Street and Oak Avenue
could be especially impactful.
+ Low bicycle volumes citywide may reflect limited
all-ages-and-abilities infrastructure, pointing to the
potential need for more protected and low-stress
facilities. The relatively higher bicycle activity at
Adams Street and Oak Avenue could suggest existing
latent demand that improved infrastructure might
better support.
+ The higher bicycle counts on Crane Avenue near
the primary school, paired with lower pedestrian
volumes, may indicate that students are more likely to
bike than walk due to the school’s distance from most
neighborhoods, suggesting an opportunity to enhance
safe bike access along this corridor.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 29
Figure 11: Pedestrian Counts
Table 1: Active Modes Count Data
Location Bicyclists Pedestrians Other Active Mode
Adams St / Kearney St 5 64 0
Adams St / Oak Ave 21 272 2
Crane St / Grayson Ave 15 26 0
Grayson Ave Crosswalk 10 108 3
Kearney St / Hillview Pl 3 26 0
Madrona Ave / Main St 7 81 0
Oak Ave / Hillview Pl 9 217 1
Spring Mt Rd / Elmhurst Ave 9 51 2
Spring Mtn Rd / Hillview Pl 3 53 0
Spring Mtn Rd / Madrona Ave 10 31 0
Vallejo St / Crane Ave 13 39 0

30 | Existing Conditions
This crossing outside of St. Helena High School includes a high-visibility crosswalk, ADA-compliant curb ramps, and an RRFB Crossing Assessment
A key component of pedestrian access is the presence
of safe and comfortable crossings and curb ramps that
are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). A desktop review of key crossings was conducted
using Google Streetview images from April-May 2024;
major corridors (arterials, collectors, and select other streets around schools) were reviewed for presence
of traffic control, crosswalks, and ADA-compliant curb
ramps. Proposed improvements based on this review and
inventory can be found in the Chapter 4.

In summary, most intersections in St. Helena could benefit from some improvements. Key findings include:
+ Most existing curb ramps are not current ADAcompliant, and some crossings are missing curb ramps altogether.
+ Many crosswalks should be upgraded from standard,
parallel lines to high-visibility, ladder-style lines. (See example photo above.)
+ Some uncontrolled crossings (i.e., where no stop sign nor signal is present) could benefit from rectangular
rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) which feature flashing
white or yellow lights activated by pedestrians using
a button. There are some locations in St. Helena that
use RRFBs, including at the entrance to St. Helena
High School on Grayson Avenue, pictured above.
+ Many intersections would benefit from red paint or
curb extension daylighting to improve visibility of
pedestrians crossing at intersections. Assembly Bill
413 prohibits parking within 20 feet of a marked or
unmarked crosswalk.
+ The City has been implementing high-visibility
crosswalks and ADA-compliant curb ramps
with detectable warning surfaces in its recent
improvement projects.

Most curb ramps are not currently ADA-compliant

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 31
Active Modes Injury Crashes
All active mode injury crashes were sourced from the
UC Berkeley SafeTREC Transportation Injury Mapping
System (which relies on data from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System)
for March 2019-March 2024, and are shown in Figure 12.

Overall, there are very few crashes in St. Helena, which is consistent with the size of the city. There were, however, three severe or fatal injury crashes among those.

Pedestrian injury crashes
+ Most occurred on Highway 29/Main Street
+ Two severe crash occurred at Pope Street and Allison
Avenue, and Main Street and Spring Street
Bicyclist injury crashes
+ Located at various intersections, primarily where
bicycle facilities are lacking
+ One severe crash occurred at Spring Street and
Sylvanna Avenue
+ No fatalities
The concentration of pedestrian injury crashes along Main Street may suggest traffic safety issues on that street but may also reflect a higher level of pedestrian activity there.

Regardless, Main Street in downtown St. Helena is a prime location for mixing of active modes with vehicle traffic.

The lack of pedestrian crashes outside of the central parts of the city, and especially in the more rural areas, might indicate that people feel unsafe walking in areas with
limited sidewalks and lighting and therefore avoid walking in these areas.

Figure 12: Active Modes Injury Crashes

32 | Existing Conditions
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a tool for quantifying the comfort level experienced by most people bicycling
along a street on a scale from 1 (least stress) to 4 (highest stress). The following inputs and street characteristics determine LTS scores for a street segment:
+ Bicycle facility presence, type, and width
+ Posted speed limit
+ Number of travel lanes per direction
+ Average daily traffic (ADT) volume
+ Presence and width of on-street parking lanes
+ Presence of a centerline
An LTS analysis was conducted for St. Helena as part of the Napa Countywide Bike Plan effort in 2019, revealing that many of St. Helena’s streets are considered low
stress (Figure 13), these are mostly local streets with lower traffic volume and speeds, which typically do
not connect to destinations outside of an immediate
neighborhood. One exception would be Pope Street, which is a connector street with bicycle facilities. In contrast, most of the city’s major streets are high stress, which serve as barriers and potentially limit mobility for those traveling by bike.

Figure 13: Assumed Level of Traffic Stress
Roads with high-traffic stress

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 33
Community Feedback on Safety
In addition to the safety analysis conducted for this plan, community members provided substantial feedback
on safety concerns throughout the city. Their input
highlighted several recurring themes and locations
where conditions feel uncomfortable or unsafe for people walking and biking. Common concerns included the need
for more consistent roadway maintenance, particularly
pothole repair on corridors like Sulphur Springs Avenue, which many felt discouraged bicycling. Participants also pointed to challenging conditions on key streets, such as limited visibility on Valley View Street and just west of the Pope Street at Allison Avenue intersection, narrow
and inconsistent bicycle facilities along Pope Street,
and constrained widths on Adams Street, where some
suggested removing on-street parking to improve comfort for bicyclists.

Several major crossings, including many along the
Highway 29/Main Street corridor, for example the Hunt
Avenue intersection, were described as difficult and
potentially dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists, with particular emphasis on the need for improved crossings
south of Downtown. Safety around St. Helena High School was another prominent concern, where pick-up and dropoff activity creates conflicts and students frequently cross outside designated areas. Finally, participants stressed the importance of improving multimodal safety along
key evacuation routes to ensure reliable access during
emergencies.

Sulphur Springs Avenue Roadway Condition (2024)
Visibility at Pope Street at Alison Avenue (2024)

34 | Existing Conditions
A needs assessment is a summary of the key gaps,
challenges, and opportunities identified through the
existing conditions analysis and previous planning
studies. To provide a consistent framework for evaluating conditions and shaping project recommendations, the
needs assessment is organized around the plan’s three
guiding principles: connectivity, accessibility, and safety.

Drawing on findings from current network performance,
community input, and past studies, the assessment
highlights where improvements are most needed and
where investments can have the greatest benefit.

Key Challenges
+ Several streets terminate as dead ends or cul-desacs, hindering connectivity and emergency response time, and creating longer journeys for all modes.
+ Narrow bridges and congestion along the Highway
29/Main Street regional connector create vehicular
bottlenecks.
+ Missing and narrow sidewalks are common,
especially on the rural edges of the city. However,
even sidewalks around schools are often insufficient,
such as along Grayson and Oak Avenues, where they
only exist on one side of the road and lack adequate
width.

Needs Assessment + Outside of downtown, collectors including Pope Street and Madrona Avenue create barriers for bicyclists
and pedestrians due to traffic volumes and limited
crossing opportunities.
+ Several bridges with narrow roadways lack dedicated
space for people walking and biking alongside people
driving.
+ Roadway improvements in more rural areas will need
to balance environmental sensitivity with mobility
needs.
+ Regional transit is only available along Highway 29.

Key Opportunities and
Preliminary Recommendations
+ St. Helena’s compact size, with daily destinations
located close together, support a strong culture
of walking and biking, offering a foundation for
expanding safe, comfortable routes for all ages and
abilities.
+ Bridge realignment and road extension projects
could help address some of the current barriers and
bottlenecks in the network for all modes.
+ Planned cross-city Class I bike facilities, including the Vine Trail, can serve as the foundation for an
expanded bike network.
+ An opportunity exists to strengthen bicycle access
downtown by shifting from shared-road conditions to
a system of dedicated lanes and paths that support
safer, more inviting trips.
+ As the city expands, sidewalks can be installed with
new, proposed development where none exist today.

These new segments should either connect directly to
existing sidewalks or be delivered through a broader
phasing plan, with clear timing criteria and funded
connection projects, so they close missing links and
tie into the pedestrian network rather than creating
“sidewalks to nowhere.”
Connectivity
Definition: The degree to which different parts of the
transportation network are linked together, allowing
for seamless travel.

Guiding Principle: Ensure that all modes
of transportation, motor vehicles, public
transit, bicycles, and walking/rolling, are
well-integrated and facilitate connected and
convenient travel throughout the city.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 35
Key Challenges
+ Most curb ramps in St. Helena are not current ADAcompliant and lack detectable warning surfaces. At some crossings, curb ramps are missing entirely.

Current ADA-compliant curb ramps in the city are
typically only found at recently installed ramps colocated with newer crosswalks. + Most parks are not located adjacent to schools, which might make it challenging for students to easily and
comfortably access green spaces and after school
activities on foot or by bike.
+ Outside of downtown, St. Helena lacks pedestrianscale lighting, which makes traveling by active modes at night or during the winter uncomfortable (and
potentially unsafe).
+ Bike racks in St. Helena are limited to a handful
downtown, one at each park, and a few at each school.

Limited end-of-trip facilities, such as bike racks,
discourages people from biking to their destinations.

Key Opportunities and
Preliminary Recommendations
+ The city has a compact, walkable downtown with a
good density of destinations within it.
+ Providing low-stress routes to major destinations,
including schools, parks, and community centers,
could strengthen everyday accessibility and
encourage more short trips by active modes.
+ Schools present a significant opportunity to
transition routine local trips from vehicular to active transportation modes, particularly for short distances
+ Expanding and enhancing street tree coverage offers
an opportunity to create more comfortable walking
and biking connections to key destinations, using the
shade provided along Main Street and in residential
areas as a model for improving comfort along more
rural roads where tree cover is often limited.
+ Implementing green infrastructure, landscape, and
streetscape standards to enhance the comfort and
legibility of the network can help to create inviting and cohesive experiences around key destinations.
+ Once the proposed bikeway network is substantially
built out, there is potential to tap into the tourism
economy to support local destinations and businesses
by providing shared micromobility opportunities, such
as bike/scooter share or local bike rental.

Accessibility
Definition:The potential for individuals of all ages and abilities to easily and comfortably travel between key
origins and destinations regardless of transportation
mode.

Guiding Principle: Help ensure that
essential St. Helena destinations, such
as schools, parks, and downtown, are
easily and comfortably accessible to
everyone, regardless of ability or mode of
transportation.

36 | Existing Conditions
Key Challenges
+ Most bicyclist-involved crashes occurred where
infrastructure is lacking, but narrow streets in
St. Helena (such as Spring Street) will make
accommodating low-stress facilities difficult.

Reallocating space to pedestrians and bicyclists may
require significant changes to the existing roadways,
such as removing street parking.
+ Most of the city’s major streets are high-stress, which divides the bicycle network and potentially limits
mobility for those traveling by bike.
+ Drawing conclusions from crash data is limited
because it only reflects where people are walking and
biking today and doesn’t capture locations that may be
perceived as unsafe. Rural roads with limited lighting
and no sidewalks and narrow bridges with poor
visibility and no dedicated space for active modes all
likely deter bicyclists and pedestrians.

Key Opportunities and
Preliminary Recommendations
+ Improving intersection safety offers a key opportunity to address active modes injury crashes, which most
often occur at intersections.
+ Daylighting strategies at intersections could improve sight lines, increase driver yielding, and free up space for streetscape enhancements.
+ Reducing vehicle speeds in areas with high pedestrian activity could create safer, more comfortable
conditions for people walking and biking.
+ Installing higher-protection bicycle facilities (Class I shared-use paths) along high-stress corridors
presents an opportunity to support “all ages and
abilities” riders, meaning children, older adults,
and anyone who may be less experienced or less
comfortable biking in traffic.
+ Applying traffic-calming measures on collector roads
could help manage speeds and enhance safety for
all users.
+ Integrating green infrastructure into new streetscapes creates opportunities for natural traffic calming,
improved safety, and more attractive, pedestrianfriendly environments.

Safety
Definition: Safety involves creating a transportation
environment that minimizes risks and enhances
protection for all users.

Guiding Principle: Ground active
transportation recommendations in current
safety data and prioritize low-stress,
comfortable facilities for people biking and
walking/rolling, especially vulnerable users
like school-aged children.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 37
Network-wide
Recommendations
4

38 | Network-wide Recommendations
This chapter presents the network-wide
recommendations that support a safer,
more connected, and more accessible
transportation system throughout St. Helena.

These recommendations build on previous
planning efforts, including the St. Helena
General Plan, the NVTA Countywide Bicycle
Plan, and other adopted local and regional
transportation studies, and have been vetted
through the Existing Conditions analysis and
community engagement process.

Together, the network-wide recommendations establish
a foundation for a cohesive multimodal system, enabling St. Helena to implement improvements in a coordinated,
scalable, and cost-effective manner while advancing the community’s long-term transportation vision.

At the time this Streets Master Plan was written, the
Napa Countywide Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
was also being developed and included citywide
bicycle facility recommendations. For the proposed
bike facilities listed on the following pages, a caret (^) indicates where alternative recommendations and/or
discrepancies exist between this Streets Master Plan
and the Napa Countywide ATP. For projects with differing recommendations, both plans should be referenced at the time of implementation to support an informed approach
All recommendations are planning level only and will
require further design and engineering review.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 39
The proposed bicycle network projects presented here
draw primarily from the 2019 NVTA Countywide Bicycle
Plan. Exceptions include the extents of the Sulphur Creek Class I Trail, which is presented in the General Plan
Update 2040 Bike Network exhibit. Facilities previously proposed for Main Street/Highway 29 prior to the
implementation of the Vine Trail (including Class II and Class III facilities) have been excluded from the list of proposed bicycle facility projects. Spring Street has also been changed from Class II bike lanes to a Class III bike boulevard with a side path as detailed on page 62-65.

The proposed bicycle network will better connect existing facilities to each other and to key destinations (such as parks and schools) that currently are disconnected from the network.

The proposed bicycle network includes a range of facility types that vary in infrastructure and user comfort, from Proposed Bicycle Facilities
Map # Street/Trail Name Begins Ends Length
(Mi.)
Class II Bike Lane
1 Allyn Ave Spring St Madrona Ave 0.34
2 S Crane Ave Grayson Ave Sulphur Springs Ave 0.45
3 Grayson Ave Primary School driveway Main St/SR 29 0.50 4 Hudson Ave Madrona Ave Spring St 0.32
5 Mills Ln Main St/SR 29 Proposed class I facility annex from Starr Ave 0.50 6 Spring Mtn Rd^ Dean York Ln Madrona Ave 0.39
7 Sulphur Springs Rd S Crane Ave Main St/SR 29 0.50
8 Sylvaner Ave Riesling Way Spring St 0.30
Class III Bike Boulevard
9 Madrona Ave/Riesling Wy/Fulton Ln^* Vine Trail Sylvaner Ave 1.03 10 Adams St Railroad Ave Allyn Ave 0.47
11 Birch Ave Crane Ave Valley View St 0.15
12 Church St^ Hunt Ave Pope St 0.13
13 College Ave Pope St Proposed class I facility at SE end of College Ave 0.18
14 Elmhurst Ave Spring Mountain Rd Main St 0.23
15 Edwards St Hunt Ave Pope St 0.15
16 Hillview Pl Spring Mountain Rd Oak St 0.14
17 Hunt Ave^ Railroad Ave Church St 0.02
18 Hunt Ave Church St Starr Ave 0.42
19 Mariposa Ln^ Pope St McCorkle Ave 0.14
20 McCorkle Ave Alison Ave Proposed class I facility 675' west of College Ave 0.29
Class III rural bike routes and bike boulevards that rely on signage, traffic calming, and shared-street treatments, to Class II bike lanes that provide dedicated on-street space, and Class I shared-use paths, which are dedicated offstreet paths separated from vehicle traffic. Some existing facilities will be upgraded to lower-stress treatments, such as converting the Class II bike lane and Class III rural bike route on Pope Street to a Class I shared-use path. In addition, proposed Class I shared-use paths along Sulphur Creek and the Napa River could create connected off-street greenways offering safe, scenic, and low-stress east–west and north–south connections, supported by a
network of Class II bike lanes and Class III bike routes and boulevards on local and collector streets.

Prioritization of the proposed bicycle facilities is
presented in Chapter 5, providing a basis for identifying high-impact projects for implementation and funding.

Table 2: Proposed Bicycle Facilities

40 | Network-wide Recommendations
Map # Street/Trail Name Begins Ends Length
(Mi.)
21 Mitchell Dr Main St Crane Ave 0.44
22 N Crane Ave Spring St Birch St 0.23
23 Oak Ave Hillview Pl Madrona Ave 0.10
24 Railroad Ave Adams St Hunt Ave 0.11
25 Spring St Sylvaner Ave White Sulphur Spring Rd 0.18
26 Valley View St Spring St Birch St 0.20
27 Spring St Valley View St Oak Ave 0.56
28 Vine Trail Fulton Ln/rail alignment Mitchell Dr/Main St 0.72 Class I Shared-Use Path
29 Vine Trail (Pratt Ave) Railroad Main St/SR 29 0.26
30 Vine Trail (Railroad) Pratt Ave Fulton Ln 0.33
31 Crane Park Path (to La Quinta Way) Grayson Ave Sulphur Springs Ave 0.50 32 Library Lane Path Adams St Vine Trail (along RR corridor) 0.13 33 Lower Reservoir Loop Trail NW city limit Loop around Lower Reservoir to connect to Spring Mountain Rd 1.25
34 McCorkle Ave Path McCorkle Ave cul-de-sac College Ave 0.14 35 Napa River Trail St Helena city limit near wastewater treatment plant
St Helena city limit (Deer Park Rd / Lower
Reservoir Trail) 3.04
36 Pope St Starr Ave Silverado Trail 0.41
37 Starr Ave Path Adams Ave (pending future
extension) Mills Ln 0.84
38 Sulphur Creek Trail Sulphur Springs Ave Napa River 2.19 39 Vine Trail (Main St/SR 29) St Helena City Limits (South) St Helena City Limits (North) 2.44 40 York Creek Path Spring Mountain Rd Main St/SR 29 (Vine Trail) 0.33 41 Adams St (pending future extension) Railroad Ave Silverado Trail 0.84 Facility Type to Be Determined
42 Allison Avenue (pending future
extension) Charter Oak Ave Mills Ln 0.21
43 College Ave (pending future
extension) McCorkle Ave Path Mills Ln 0.24
44 Main St Pratt Ave Mitchell Dr 0.76
45 Mills Ln (pending future extension) Starr Ave Silverado Trail 0.51 46 Oak Ave (pending future extension) Mitchell Dr Grayson Ave 0.42 Class III Rural Bike Route**
Chaix Ln Main St/SR 29 Napa River Trail (proposed) 1.07 Pratt Ave Main St/SR 29 Napa River Trail (proposed) 0.71 Spring Mountain Rd St Helena city limit (West) Dean York Ln 0.69 Sulphur Springs Ave St Helena city limit Spring St 0.16 Sulphur Springs Ave Sulphur Creek Crane Ave 0.93
*Posted speeds of 30 mph on Madrona will be reduced to 25 mph to comply with Senate Bill 1216, which prohibits Class III facilities on roadways with posted speeds over 30 mph.
** Class III rural bike routes are not shown in Figure 14 as they typically involve signage only and do not require roadway striping or construction. Class III rural bike routes differ from Class I bikeways, for example, which include dedicated off-street paths and require more extensive planning and coordination. ^Alternate recommendations were proposed in the Napa County Active Transportation Plan (ATP) during the writing of this Plan:
#6: Change recommendation from Class II Bike Lanes to Class III Bike Boulevard #9: Change recommendation from Class III Bike Boulevard to Class II Bike Lanes #12: Shift recommendation from Church St to Edwards St
#17 Extend recommendation to Main St.
#19: Shift recommendation from Mariposa Ln to Allison Ave Additional facilities include a Class I facility over Sulphur Creek from Sulphur Springs Ave to White Sulper Spring Rd and a TBD facility on Crinella Dr to connect to the Vine Trail if the Vine Trail alignment is west of the train tracks (otherwise this facility will be removed).

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 41
Spri ng Mtn Rd
Meadow Ln
Fulton Ln
Pratt Ave
Pope St
Mills Ln
Adams St
Dowdell Ln
La Fata St
Vintage Ave
Chaix Ln
White Ln
Oak Ave
Main St
Fir Hill Dr Madrona Ave
Grayson Ave
Vallejo St
Sulphur Springs Ave
Crane Ave
Spring St
Dean York Dr
Silverado Trl
Howell Mtn
Napa River
Sulphur Creek
Starr Ave
College Ave
Allison Ave
Charter Oak Ave
Lewelling Ln
Figure 14: Proposed Bicycle Facilities
3 1
2 4
6 7
5 8
9 31
34 36
37 39
40 33
39 38
29 30
35 32
41 10
11 15
12 13
14 23
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 27
25 26
24 28
42 43
45 46
44 Shared Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class II)
Bike Boulevard (Class III)
Bikeway Facility Type TBD
Vine Trail
Downtown Specific Plan
Boundary
School
City Facility
Major Park
Railroad 0 0.25 0.5 mi
Existing Proposed

42 | Network-wide Recommendations
Crossing Assessment and
Proposed Improvements
Map
# Location Existing Condition Proposed Improvement
1 Main St at Pratt
Ave+
High-visibility crosswalk on south approach; high-visibility crosswalk and stop sign on minor approach; curb ramps
have detectable warning surfaces
Install high-visibility crosswalk on north approach
2 Main St at Elmhurst
Ave^+
Standard crosswalk on south approach; standard
crosswalk and stop-sign on minor approach; “slight” curb extensions; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces; RRFB.

Ensure high-visibility crosswalks on all approaches and advanced warning sign for RRFB
3 Main St at Crinella
Ct^+
High-visibility crosswalk on all approaches; stop sign on minor approach; curb ramps have detectable warning
surfaces
Install RRFB with advanced warning signs on either north or south approach
4 Main St at Madrona
Ave*^+
Signalized intersection; standard crosswalks; curb ramps not ADA-compliant
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility; upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant; install curb extensions
5 Main St at Pine St+
Standard crosswalks on all approaches except north;
stop signs on minor approaches; curb ramps not ADAcompliant Ensure high-visibility crosswalks on all approaches;
upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant; install RRFB on either north or south approach
6 Main St at Adams
St+
Signalized intersection; standard crosswalks; curb ramps not ADA-compliant
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility; upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant; install curb extensions on
both sides of Main St crossings
7 Main St at Hunt
Ave^+
High-visibility crosswalk and stop sign on minor approach; high-visibility crosswalk on south approach; curb ramps not ADA-compliant
Install high-visibility crosswalk on north approach;
upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant; install curb
extensions on all approaches
The recommendations below were developed as a part of
the Streets Master Plan intersection review, and include locations flagged for improvement by City staff and the public. Recommendations from previous plans include:
+ 2021 St. Helena Safe Routes to School Plan
(denoted with *)
+ 2019 Safe Routes Napa County Walk Audits
(denoted with ^)
+ 2023 NVTA Vision Zero Plan (denoted with +)
+ All locations flagged for improvements below were
identified in the 2017 ADA Transition Plan for curb
ramp improvements.

Crosswalks have only been recommended where
sidewalks exist on both sides and assume inclusion
of ADA-compliant curb ramps. To enforce AB413 and
improve pedestrian visibility, it is recommended that curbs are painted red within 20 feet of intersections, unless a curb extension is installed. This assessment is nonexhaustive and covers major streets only (except where additional intersections were flagged). Recommendations in the Downtown Specific Plan are subject to change.

Prioritization of the proposed crossing improvements is presented in Chapter 5, providing a basis for identifying high-impact projects for implementation and funding.

The 2016 Napa County Pedestrian Master Plan included
sidewalk recommendations for St. Helena which were
reviewed by City staff in July 2024. The following
outstanding projects carried forth in this plan are:
+ Sidewalk installation around Robert Louis Stevenson
Middle School at Hillview Place, Spring Mountain
Road, and Elmhurst Avenue.
+ ADA-compliant retrofit of business driveways along
Main Street, from Spring Street to Pope Street
(partially complete beginning at Pope Street end).
+ Conversion of decomposed gravel pathway along Main
Street, from Dowdell Lane to El Bonita Avenue, to
ADA-compliant sidewalk.
+ Sidewalk repair on Main Street at El Bonita Avenue.

Table 3: Proposed Crossing Improvements

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 43
Map
# Location Existing Condition Proposed Improvement
8 Main St at Spring
St*+
High-visibility crosswalk and stop sign or minor approach; high-visibility crosswalk on southeast approach; curb
ramps not ADA-compliant
Install curb extensions and RRFB on southeast approach; upgrade all curb ramps to be ADA-compliant
9 Main St at Pope St+ Signalized intersection; standard crosswalks on all approaches except south; curb ramps not ADA-compliant
Ensure high-visibility crosswalks on all approaches;
upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant; install curb
extensions on both sides of Main St crossings
10 Main St at Mitchell
Dr+
Signalized intersection; standard crosswalk on minor
approach only; curb ramps not ADA-compliant
Ensure high-visibility crosswalks on all approaches (note that north approach of this intersection is south approach of SR29/Pope St intersection); install curb extensions on both sides of Main St crossings; upgrade curb ramps to
be ADA-compliant
11 Main St at 1000
Main+ Currently no crossing here Consider installing a crossing to improve pedestrian connectivity, reduce block lengths, and slow speeds. 12 Main St at Charter
Oak Ave+
High-visibility crossing with RRFB on north approach; stop control on minor approaches with standard crosswalk on
west approach and no crosswalk on east approach; most
curb ramps not ADA-compliant
Ensure high-visibility crosswalks on all approaches and upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant. Modernize
RRFB and/or install PHB (PHB already in City’s CIP and
dependent on private development funding)
13 Main St at Grayson
Ave
Signalized intersection; standard crosswalk on minor
approach (no sidewalk/train tracks only on east side of street); curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces
Upgrade crosswalk to high visibility
14 Pope St at Allison
Ave
Stop-controlled crossing on minor approach (across
Allison Ave) with high-visibility crosswalk with ADAcompliant ramps; no crossing across Pope St because there no sidewalk on north side and limited visibility at curve makes crossing dangerous.

Crossing cannot be installed here due to limited visibility and ROW constraints. Install speed reduction treatments on both approaches of Pope St at Allison Ave. Consider
vegetation management to improve visibility.
15 Pope St at
Mariposa Ln
Stop control and standard crosswalk on minor approach;
high-visibility crosswalk on southwest approach Install RRFB (Jacob Meily Park access) 16 Pope St at Edwards
St
High-visibility crosswalk on north approach across
Edwards; stop-controlled crossing on minor approach (no crosswalk); ramps not ADA-compliant
Install high-visibility crosswalk on minor approach and upgrade ramps to be ADA-compliant. If crossing is not
installed at Allison Ave, consider installing RRFB at this location instead.
17 Pope St at Starr
Ave
High-visibility crosswalks on major approaches; standard crosswalk on minor approach; RRFB on west approach;
one curb ramp not ADA-compliant
Ensure all crosswalks are high-visibility and that all curb ramps are ADA-compliant
18 Hunt Ave and
Railroad Crossing Not ADA-compliant; poor visibility
Upgrade to be ADA-compliant. Add vertical delineation
or other formalized separation on west side of railroad tracks between tracks and Railroad Avenue to shorten
crosswalk across the parking spaces. Remove the two
parking stalls immediately adjacent to the crosswalk to improve pedestrian visibility.
19 Hunt Ave and Starr
Ave
Stop-controlled on all legs; no crosswalks; curb ramps
missing and existing one is non compliant
Install high-visibility crosswalks at both stop signs and ensure ADA-compliant curb ramps are present at all
crossings
20 Hunt Ave at
Edwards St
High-visibility crosswalk on west and south approaches; stop sign on south (minor) approach; curb ramps have
detectable warning surfaces
Install high-visibility crosswalk on east approach.

Conduct study to address travel lane and parking
reconfiguration.
21 Hunt Ave at Church
St
High-visibility crosswalk and stop sign on Railroad Ave approach; stop sign with no crosswalk at Church St
approach; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces
Install high-visibility crosswalk at Church St, just east of the railroad tracks; upgrade Church crosswalk to highvisibility 22 Hillview Pl at
Middle School Standard crosswalk; one ramp not ADA-compliant Upgrade to high-visibility crosswalk and upgrade ramp to be ADA-compliant; install curb extensions and RRFB 23 Hillview Pl and
Spring Mountain
Rd^
Stop control on minor approaches; standard crosswalks;
curb ramps not ADA-compliant
Install stop-control on all approaches and curb
extensions on all corners, upgrade all crosswalks to
high visibility, and upgrade all curb ramps to be ADAcompliant 24 Madrona Ave and
Oak Ave*
All-way stop control with standard crosswalks; non
compliant curb ramps
Upgrade crosswalks to be high-visibility and upgrade
curb ramps to ADA-compliant; extend red curb to daylight the intersection; install curb extensions on all corners 25 Madrona Ave at
Stockton St
No crosswalks; stop control on minor approach; one curb ramp not ADA-compliant
Install high-visibility crosswalk on minor approach and across the NE approach on Madrona Ave; ensure all curb
ramps are ADA-compliant

44 | Network-wide Recommendations
Map
# Location Existing Condition Proposed Improvement
26 Madrona Ave at
Allyn Ave*
No crosswalks; stop control on minor approach; curb
ramps have detectable warning surfaces
Install high-visibility crosswalk on minor approach and across the SW approach on Madrona Ave
27 Pine St and Oak
Ave
All-way stop control with standard crosswalks; non
compliant curb ramps
Upgrade crosswalks to be high-visibility and upgrade
curb ramps to ADA-compliant
28 Adams St at
Stockton St
All-way stop control with standard crosswalks; curb ramps either non-compliant or missing
Upgrade crosswalks to be high-visibility and upgrade
crosswalks to be ADA-compliant
29 Adams St at Allyn
Ave
All-way stop control with no crosswalks; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces Upgrade crosswalks to be high visibility 30 Spring St at Oak
Ave*
All-way stop control with standard crosswalks on three of four approaches; curb ramps not ADA-compliant
Ensure high-visibility crosswalks exist on all approaches; upgrade curb ramps to be ADA-compliant
31 Spring St at
Kearney St*
Stop control and high-visibility crosswalk on minor
approach; high-visibility crosswalk on NE approach; two ramps are not ADA-compliant and one does not exist
Install ADA-compliant ramps at all crossings. Conduct
study to address travel lane and parking reconfiguration, and measure pedestrian volumes.
32 Spring St at
Stockton St
Stop control and high-visibility crosswalk on minor
approach; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces Install high-visibility crosswalk on NE approach 33 Spring St at Crane
Ave*
Stop control and no crosswalk on minor approach; noncompliant rampUpgrade curb ramp to be ADA-compliant. Install highvisibility crosswalks across Spring St. 34 Spring St at Allyn
Ave
Stop control and high-visibility crosswalk on minor
approach; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces Install high-visibility crosswalk on NE approach 35 Spring St at
Hudson Ave
Stop control on minor approach; missing curb ramps; no
crosswalks
Install high-visibility crosswalks on minor approach
and NE approach (feasibility challenge anticipated with utility pole; may need to angle crosswalk); ensure ADAcompliant curb ramps exist at all crossings 36 Spring St and
Valley View Ave
Stop control and standard crosswalk on minor approach;
high-visibility crosswalk on NE approach and noncompliant ramp on Spring St Install RRFB on NE approach and upgrade curb ramp
to be ADA-compliant; upgrade standard crosswalk to
high-visibility. Conduct study to address travel lane
and parking reconfiguration, and measure pedestrian
volumes.
37 Spring Mountain Rd
at Spring Mountain
Ct
Three-legged intersection with stop control on two of the approaches; no crosswalks nor curb ramps present
Install high-visibility crosswalk and ADA-compliant curb ramps on east approach.
38 Spring Mountain Rd
at Elmhurst Ave^
Stop control and standard crosswalk on minor approach
and high-visibility crosswalk on southeast approach; all curb ramps either missing or non-compliant
Install high-visibility crosswalk on minor approach, ADAcompliant curb ramps, and curb extensions 40 Valley View Ave at
Olive Ave
Stop control on minor approach; standard crosswalks on
minor approach and across SE approach of Valley View
Ave; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces
Upgrade crosswalks to high visibility
Crossings that were reviewed and that do not need improvements Grayson Ave at
Crane Ave
All-way stop control; high-visibility crosswalk across
Grayson Ave; curb ramps have detectable warning
surfaces
None
Pope St at Paseo
Grand Drive
High-visibility crosswalks on all approaches except
vineyard entrance (standard crosswalk); RRFB on north
approach; stop control on minor approaches; curb ramps
have detectable warning surfaces
None
Adams St at Oak
Ave
All-way stop control with high-visibility crosswalks and curb ramps with detectable warning surfaces None
Madrona Ave and
Kearney St
Stop control on minor approaches, high visibility
crosswalks, curb extensions; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces
None
Adams St at
Kearney St
All-way stop control with high-visibility crosswalks; ADAcompliant curb ramps None Hillview Pl at
Kearney St
High-visibility crosswalks; stop control on minor approach; curb ramps have detectable warning surfaces
None; however curb extensions may be considered
pending configuration study.

Grayson Ave
at High School
Entrance
High-visibility crosswalk and RRFB; curb ramps have
detectable warning surfaces None

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 45
Figure 15: Proposed Intersection Improvements
ng Mtn Rd
Fulton Ln
Pratt Ave
Pope St
Mills Ln
Adams St
Dowdell L
La Fata St
Vintage Ave
Oak Ave
Main St
Hill Dr Madrona Ave
Grayson Ave
Vallejo St
Sulphur Springs Ave
Crane Ave
Spring St
ork Dr
ado Trl
er
Sulphur Creek
Starr Ave
College Ave
Allison Ave
Charter Oak Ave
Lewelling Ln
St. Helena Streets Master Plan Project Team
City of Napa as part of the Active Transportation and Safe Routes to School Plan for Madrona Ave and Spring St (2021) Safe Routes Napa County Walk Audit Reports (2022)
NVTA Vision Zero Plan (2023)
Recommended improvement proposed by:
0 0.25 0.5 mi
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
22 23
24 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
25 26
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21

46 | Network-wide Recommendations
Proposed Roadway Extensions
and Bridge Projects
Roadway Extensions
The roadway extension projects included in the Streets
Master Plan aim to improve connectivity, stitch together gaps in the local street grid, and provide new east–west travel choices that reduce reliance on Main Street.

These extensions would offer more direct neighborhood
connections, enhance everyday mobility, and create
additional routes for emergency access and egress.

Many of the concepts originate from the City’s General
Plan, reflecting long-standing objectives to strengthen the roadway network and distribute traffic more evenly across the city. Key extension concepts include the Adams Street extension to Silverado Trail, the two phased Oak Avenue extension (from Mitchell Drive to Charter Oak Avenue and Charter Oak Avenue to Grayson Avenue), and additional
connections along Starr Avenue, Mills Lane, Allison
Avenue, and College Avenue.

While the Adams Street extension is the only project with a defined bicycle and pedestrian facility at this stage, all future extensions will require further multimodal
design exploration. These corridors should be planned
to accommodate high-quality bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure, maintain continuity with the facilities they connect to, and leverage the opportunity inherent in building new roadways to embed low-stress, comfortable
facilities and streetscape amenities that enhance the
walking and biking experience.

Bridge Projects
Two major bridge projects, the Pope Street Bridge over the Napa River and the Pratt Avenue Bridge, are intended to address long-standing safety, visibility, and accessibility concerns at existing constrained crossings. Both structures are characterized by narrow widths, limited shoulders, and geometries that restrict sight lines, creating challenges for everyday users and emergency responders. Their
constrained cross-sections do not provide sufficient space for dedicated pedestrian and bicycle facilities, resulting in gaps within the active transportation network as well as limited evacuation and emergency access capacity.

To improve multimodal safety and route redundancy, a
likely implementation scenario for both bridges would
involve retaining the existing structures for bicycle and pedestrian use while constructing new, vehicular-only
bridges adjacent to them. This approach would maintain
the historic character and utility of the current bridges while significantly enhancing roadway capacity, emergency response reliability, and multimodal connectivity.

In addition to improvements to these existing bridges, the Adams Street extension across the Napa River and the
Oak Avenue extension over Sulphur Creek would each
require the construction of new bridge structures.

A Synchro-based transportation operations analysis
was conducted for the Adams Street, Oak Avenue, and
Pope Street Bridge alternatives to evaluate how new
connections could relieve congestion on Main Street and improve citywide traffic flow. The results of this analysis, along with the prioritization of roadway extensions and proposed bridge projects, are presented in Chapter 5
(page 56). Additional technical details from the Synchro analysis are provided in Appendix F.

Map
# Roadway Extension or Bridge Project
1 Adams St extension to Silverado Trail
2 Starr Ave extension north to Adams St
3 Allison Ave extension to Mills Ln
4 Starr Ave extension to Mills Ln
5 College Ave extension to Mills Ln
6 Mills Ln extension to Silverado Trail
7a Oak Ave extension from Mitchell Dr to Charter Oak Ave 7b Oak Ave extension from Charter Oak Ave to Grayson Ave 8 Pratt Ave Bridge Project
9 Pope Street Bridge Project
Table 4: Proposed Roadway Extension and Bridge Projects

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 47
Spri ng Mtn Rd
Meadow Ln
Fulton Ln
Pratt Ave
Pope St
Mills Ln
Adams St
Dowdell Ln
La Fata St
Vintage Ave
Chaix Ln
White Ln
Oak Ave
Main St
Fir Hill Dr Madrona Ave
Grayson Ave
Vallejo St
Sulphur Springs Ave
Crane Ave
Spring St
Dean York Dr
Silverado Trl
Howell Mtn Rd
Napa River
Sulphur Creek
Starr Ave
College Ave
Allison Ave
Charter Oak Ave
Lewelling Ln
0 0.25 0.5 mi
Bridge Realignment
Roadway Extension
Proposed Project:

Downtown Specific Plan Boundary
School
City Facility
Major Park
Railroad
1 2
3 4 5
6 7a
7b
8 9
Figure 16: Proposed Roadway Extension and Bridge Projects

48 | CITY OF ST. HELENA
Implementation
Considerations
5

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 49
This chapter outlines key considerations
for advancing future network-wide projects
identified through this Plan. It provides a
framework for evaluating and sequencing
improvements based on a combination of
community priorities, technical prioritization,
funding strategies, and planning-level cost
opinions.

This chapter provides guidance to support decisionmaking as opportunities, resources, and conditions change. These considerations help the City evaluate
project readiness, identify phasing and bundling
opportunities, and determine where partnerships or
external funding may be most effective.

Full project prioritization results are presented in this chapter and detailed further in Appendix C. Networkwide cost opinions are provided in Appendix D, and a Synchro-based transportation operations analysis
for key roadway extension and bridge projects is
documented in Appendix F. This chapter summarizes key
findings from these appendices; readers are encouraged
to refer to the appendices for additional detail.

50 | Implementation
Project Prioritization
All recommendations in the Streets Master Plan will take time and resources to implement. Recognizing funding and staff capacity constraints, as well as potential feasibility challenges, infrastructure projects were evaluated using a data-driven prioritization process informed by public input.

Bicycle facility, pedestrian crossing, bridge realignment, and road extension projects were scored based on the
criteria summarized in the table below and explained on the following pages. Each project received points for each criterion, and total points determined its relative ranking.

Bicycle and pedestrian projects relied on different criteria than road and bridge projects. Appendix C provides more information on the prioritization process and detailed
scoring.

This prioritization was used to identify which projects this planning effort carried forward into conceptual
design, focusing on those with the greatest potential to improve safety, access, and community outcomes. Just as importantly, the scoring provides a tool to inform future planning, helping the City understand which types of
projects may offer the most meaningful impact.

As an example, many of the Class I trail projects,
including the Napa River Trail and the Sulphur Creek Trail, ranked as high priority, especially when accounting for strong community support and their potential to offer
transformational, community-wide benefits. However,
these trail corridors are also highly conceptual and
visionary at this stage. They would require significant resources to advance and are expected to involve
substantial environmental, design, and right-of-way
complexities,especially when compared to lightertouch facilities such as Class III rural bike routes or bike boulevards, which typically rely on signage, pavement
markings, and targeted traffic calming rather than major new construction.

It is important to note that this prioritization is not a phasing plan and does not dictate the order in which
projects will be constructed. It also does not account for fundability, detailed feasibility, right-of-way constraints, or future partnership opportunities, all of which will influence actual implementation. Instead, it serves as a high-level guide to help the City and its partners recognize where strategic investment, planning, and early coordination may yield the greatest long-term benefit.

Below is a table summarizing the prioritization criteria used, For more information on the prioritization process, and detailed scoring see Appendix C. Network-wide cost
opinions are provided in Appendix D.

Prioritization Criterion Description
Bicycle and Intersection Improvement Projects
Access Prioritizing access to community-identified destinations with specific emphasis on schools and parks Safety Prioritizing safety needs based on where crashes have occurred in the past Connectivity and Comfort Prioritizing projects that fill gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian networks Community Support* Prioritizing locations with strong public/stakeholder support Bonus: Activity Prioritizing locations that currently have high levels of bicycle and pedestrian activity Road Extension and Bridge Realignment Projects
Feasibility Prioritizing projects that do not have significant feasibility challenges Community Support* Prioritizing locations with strong public/stakeholder support Functional Classification Prioritizing projects that will function as essential arterial or collector routes in the overall network. *Community support was quantified based on feedback received on the engagement boards presented to the St. Helena community during October 2024 engagement events.

Table 5: Proposed Project Prioritization Criteria

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 51
Prioritized Bicycle Facilities
Score Street/Trail Name Begins Ends Proposed Facility
7 Sulphur Creek Trail Sulphur Springs Ave Napa River Class I Shared-Use Path 6 S Crane Ave Grayson Ave Sulphur Springs Ave Class II Bike Lanes 6 Adams St Railroad Ave Allyn Ave Class III Bike Boulevard 6 Napa River Trail St Helena city limit near
wastewater treatment plant
St Helena city limit (Deer Park Rd /
Lower Reservoir Trail) Class I Shared-Use Path
6 Adams St (pending future
extension) Railroad Ave Silverado Trail Class I Shared-Use Path 5 Crane Park Path (to La Quinta
Way) Grayson Ave Sulphur Springs Ave Class I Shared-Use Path 5 Library Lane Path Adams St Vine Trail (along RR corridor) Class I Shared-Use Path 5 College Ave Pope St Proposed class I facility at SE end of College Ave Class III Bike Boulevard
4 Grayson Ave Primary School driveway Highway 29 (Main St) Class II Bike Lanes 4 Madrona Ave/Riesling Wy/
Fulton Ln Vine Trail Sylvaner Ave Class III Bike Boulevard 4 Elmhurst Ave Spring Mountain Rd Main St Class III Bike Boulevard 4 Edwards St Hunt Ave Pope St Class III Bike Boulevard
4 Hillview Pl Spring Mountain Rd Oak St Class III Bike Boulevard 4 Spring St Sylvaner Ave White Sulphur Spring Rd Class III Bike Boulevard The prioritization results for proposed bicycle facilities show a clear trend: Class I shared-use paths consistently rose to the top because they performed well across all, if not most, criteria. Class I trail projects also ranked highly with the public, reflecting a community desire
for recreational opportunities and comfortable, fully
separated facilities. Corridors such as the Sulphur Creek Trail, the Napa River Trail segments, and the pending
Class I extensions of Adams Street scored highest
because they provide highly comfortable, all-ages-andabilities connections across the city.

Although these trail projects scored well, and are
strongly supported, they also carry some of the greatest feasibility challenges, including constrained right of way, environmental permitting considerations, and higher
construction costs. Many of these corridors would require entirely new pathway construction, grading, and potential cut and fill work, making them more complex to advance
despite their high public value.

While many mid tier projects consisted of neighborhood
bike boulevards that improve local circulation and fill important gaps, several Class III projects also emerged as top priorities due to their strategic roles in the network.

Adams Street in particular ranked highly because of its potential to cross Main Street and create a key low stress connection into western neighborhoods, and College
Avenue performed well given its proximity to major
destinations including academic institutions and City Hall.

Community members also expressed that a trail along the Napa River would be a desirable alternative to Silverado Trail, where narrow lanes and high vehicle speeds
currently discourage bicycling.

Class III rural bike routes, while important to regional mobility, were not included in the community-facing
prioritization exercise. These routes represent the
lightest-touch bikeways and typically rely on signage,
rather than substantial roadway changes. More robust
facilities, such as Class III bike boulevards with traffic calming, Class II bike lanes with dedicated on-street
space, and Class I shared-use paths that are fully
separated from vehicle traffic,require progressively
greater levels of investment and coordination and
therefore benefit more from comparative project ranking.

Projects along Main Street and those within the Vine
Trail corridor were removed from the prioritization list because they fall under separate planning processes and jurisdictions that extend beyond the scope of this master planning effort.

Detailed prioritization scores for proposed bike facilities are provided in Appendix C.

Table 6: Prioritized Bicycle Facilities

52 | Implementation
Score Street/Trail Name Begins Ends Proposed Facility
4 Spring Mtn Rd Dean York Ln Madrona Ave Class II Bike Lanes 4 Hunt Ave Church St Starr Ave Class III Bike Boulevard 4 Mitchell Dr Main St Crane Ave Class III Bike Boulevard 4 McCorkle Ave Path McCorkle Ave cul-de-sac College Ave Class I Shared-Use Path 4 Pope St Starr Ave Silverado Trail Class I Shared-Use Path 4 Starr Ave Path (pending future
extension)
Adams Ave (pending future
extension) Mills Ln Class I Shared-Use Path
4 York Creek Path Spring Mountain Rd Main St/SR 29 (Vine Trail) Class I Shared-Use Path 4 Valley View St Spring St Birch St Class III Bike Boulevard 4 Spring St Valley View St Oak Ave Class III Bike Boulevard 4 Oak Ave (pending future
extension) Mitchell Dr Grayson Ave TBD
3 Allyn Ave Spring St Madrona Ave Class II Bike Lanes
3 Hudson Ave Madrona Ave Spring St Class II Bike Lanes
3 Mills Ln Main St/SR 29 Proposed class I facility annex from Starr Ave Class II Bike Lanes
3 Birch Ave Crane Ave Valley View St Class III Bike Boulevard 3 Church St Hunt Ave Pope St Class III Bike Boulevard
3 Hunt Ave Railroad Ave Church St Class III Bike Boulevard 3 Mariposa Ln Pope St McCorkle Ave Class III Bike Boulevard 3 McCorkle Ave Alison Ave Proposed class I facility 675' west of College Ave Class III Bike Boulevard
3 N Crane Ave Spring St Birch St Class III Bike Boulevard 3 Oak Ave Hillview Pl Madrona Ave Class III Bike Boulevard 3 Railroad Ave Adams St Hunt Ave Class III Bike Boulevard 3 Railroad Ave Fulton Ln Hunt Ave Class III Bike Boulevard 3 College Ave (pending future
extension) McCorkle Ave Path Mills Ln TBD
3 Mills Ln (pending future
extension) Starr Ave Silverado Trail TBD
3 Lower Reservoir Loop Trail NW city limit Loop around Lower Reservoir to connect to Spring Mountain Rd Class I Shared-Use Path
2 Chaix Ln Main St/SR 29 Napa River Trail (proposed) Class III Rural Bike Route 2 Pratt Ave Main St/SR 29 Napa River Trail (proposed) Class III Rural Bike Route 2 Spring Mountain Rd St Helena city limit (West) Dean York Ln Class III Rural Bike Route 2 Sulphur Springs Ave St Helena city limit Spring St Class III Rural Bike Route 2 Sulphur Springs Ave Sulphur Creek Crane Ave Class III Rural Bike Route 2 Sulphur Springs Rd S Crane Ave Main St/SR 29 Class II Bike Lanes 2 Sylvaner Ave Riesling Way Spring St Class II Bike Lanes 2 Allison Avenue (pending future
extension) Charter Oak Ave Mills Ln TBD

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 53
Prioritized Crossing Improvements
The crossing prioritization analysis highlighted a strong concentration of high-scoring locations along Main Street, reflecting its central role in the community’s mobility network and its consistently high levels of pedestrian
activity. Intersections such as Main Street at Grayson
Avenue, Madrona Avenue, Spring Street, Crinella Court,
Elmhurst Avenue, and Hunt Avenue rose to the top in
part because Main Street serves as the city’s primary
commercial and civic corridor where multimodal conflicts and safety concerns are most acute. Several of these
intersections, including those at Crinella Court, Madrona Avenue, Spring Street, and Elmhurst Avenue, have also
been identified for improvement in multiple previous
planning efforts, underscoring a long-recognized need for enhanced crossings and traffic calming in these locations.

Other high-ranking intersections, such as those along
Pope Street, Spring Street, and Hillview Place near the middle school, reflect similar conditions where pedestrian demand, school access, transit activity, or network
significance elevate the urgency of improvements.

Together, the prioritization results point to a focused set of locations where targeted intersection upgrades would provide substantial safety and connectivity benefits for people walking and biking.

Recommendations that were also made in previous plans
and studies are noted as follows: 2021 St. Helena Safe
Routes to School Plan (denoted with *), 2019 Safe Routes Napa County Walk Audits (denoted with ^), and 2023
NVTA Vision Zero Plan (denoted with +). All locations were identified in the 2017 ADA Transition Plan for curb ramp improvements.

Detailed prioritization scores for proposed crossing
improvements are provided in Appendix C.

Score Intersection
6 Main St at Grayson Ave
5 Pope St at Allison Ave
5 Hillview Pl and Spring Mountain Rd^
4 Main St at Crinella Ct^+
4 Main St at Madrona Ave*^+
4 Main St at Adams St+
4 Main St at Spring St*+
4 Pope St at Starr Ave
4 Hillview Pl at Middle School
4 Spring St at Hudson Ave
3 Main St at Elmhurst Ave^+
3 Main St at Pine St+
3 Main St at Charter Oak Ave+
3 Pope St at Mariposa Ln
3 Hunt Ave and Railroad Crossing
3 Hunt Ave at Edwards St
3 Madrona Ave and Oak Ave*
3 Madrona Ave at Stockton St
3 Madrona Ave at Allyn Ave*
3 Spring St at Oak Ave*
3 Spring St at Crane Ave*
3 Spring St and Valley View Ave
3 Spring Mountain Rd at Spring Mountain Ct
3 Spring Mountain Rd at Elmhurst Ave^
3 Valley View Ave at Olive Ave
2 Pope St at Edwards St
2 Hunt Ave at Church St
2 Main St at Pratt Ave+
2 Main St at Hunt Ave^+
2 Main St at Pope St+
2 Main St at Mitchell Dr+
2 Pine St and Oak Ave
2 Adams St at Stockton St
2 Adams St at Allyn Ave
2 Spring St at Kearney St*
2 Spring St at Stockton St
2 Main St at 1000 Main+
1 Hunt Ave and Starr Ave
1 Spring St at Allyn Ave
Table 7: Prioritized Crossing Improvements

54 | Implementation
Prioritized Roadway Extension and
Bridge Projects
As documented in Existing Conditions, dead-end streets
and narrow bridges limit emergency access, circulation, and multimodal mobility. The following road extension
and bridge realignment projects directly addresses
these constraints through targeted new links and critical capacity upgrades. In alignment with the General Plan’s VMT reduction goals, these projects would support
necessary vehicular connectivity while being designed as multimodal corridors that integrate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities to encourage alternatives to singleoccupant vehicle travel and help manage overall VMT.

The prioritization process evaluated road extensions and bridge projects based on feasibility, community support, and their functional role within the broader street network.

While several projects rose to the top, all face relatively low feasibility and high complexity, including right-ofway constraints, environmental permitting requirements, grading challenges, and substantial construction costs.

Within the scoring, the Adams Street extension emerged
as the top-ranked project, reflecting strong community
support and its intended role as a future essential collector street, with the added benefit of accommodating a bicycle facility over time. The Pope Street Bridge realignment
also ranked highly, supported by the community and
reinforcing Pope Street’s role as a key collector corridor in the city. The Oak Avenue extension scored strongly as well, with clear public backing and its role in strengthening Oak Avenue’s existing collector function, improving grid connectivity, and providing a more direct route to schools.

Mid-tier and lower-ranking projects—such as the Starr
Avenue, Mills Lane, Allison Avenue, and College Avenue
extensions—provide valuable connections but offer more
localized benefits and face varying feasibility constraints.

To understand how these new connections could impact
traffic, a Synchro-based transportation operations analysis was conducted (see Appendix F) for four key alternatives:
the Adams Street extension, the Oak Avenue extension to Charter Oak Avenue, the Oak Avenue Extension to Grayson Avenue, and the Pope Street Bridge project (including
construction of a new vehicular bridge and realignment
of Pope Street at Silverado Trail and Howell Mountain
Score Roadway Extension or Bridge Project
5 Adams St Extension to Silverado Trail
4 Pope Street Bridge Realignment
4 Oak Ave Extension to Grayson Ave*
3 Starr Ave extension north to Adams St
3 Mills Ln extension to Silverado Trail
3 Pratt Ave Bridge Realignment
2 Starr Ave extension to Mills Ln
1 Allison Ave extension to Mills Ln
1 College Ave extension to Mills Ln
Table 8: Prioritized Roadway Extension and Bridge Projects Road). Synchro is a traffic modeling tool that estimates intersection delay and Level of Service (LOS), a standard measure of traffic conditions ranging from LOS A (minimal delay) to LOS F (severe congestion). The analysis evaluated weekday morning, weekday evening, and weekend midday
peak travel periods.

At a high level, the analysis found that all four alternatives would improve traffic operations by providing new routes and reducing dependence on Main Street. By rerouting
traffic, each alternative reduced delays at several of the city’s most congested intersections, including locations that currently operate over capacity during peak periods.

Both the Oak Avenue and Adams Street extensions shifted enough traffic to measurably improve conditions at key
intersections while maintaining acceptable operations on the new or expanded routes. The Oak Avenue extension
to Grayson Avenue provided the greatest overall
operational benefit because it creates a parallel route to the most congested segment of Main Street and attracts
a significant share of north–south traffic. The Oak Avenue extension to Charter Oak Avenue also improves traffic
operations, though its benefits are more modest because drivers remain on Main Street longer before accessing
the new connection. The Adams Street extension also
performed strongly, providing a high-quality east–west
bypass that improves circulation, adds emergency access, and reduces pressure on Main Street. The Pope Street
Bridge project produced moderate benefits, improving
safety and reliability along the Silverado Trail–Pope Street corridor but with limited ability to divert traffic from the most congested sections of Main Street.

Detailed prioritization scores for road extension and
bridge projects are in Appendix C. The transportation
operations analysis is documented in Appendix F.
* Inclusive of both phases of the Oak Avenue extension (Mitchell Drive to Charter Oak Avenue and Charter Oak Avenue to Grayson Avenue)

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 55
Funding Strategies
Facility Type Low Cost
(per mile)
High Cost
(per mile) Lower Cost Description Higher Cost Description Class I Bike Paths $7,220,000 $7,220,000*
Replace existing 5’ sidewalk to 12’
shared use path + 5’ physical barrier
along curb line
Trail-like facility next to river
or creek (requires full new
construction)
Class II Bike Lanes $580,000 $3,160,000 Eradicate existing markings and stripe bike lanes
Resurface street and stripe bike
lanes
Class III Bike Boulevard $780,000 $1,800,000
Shared lane pavement markings and
signage. Only speed humps, signing
and striping
Shared lane pavement markings
and signage. Speed humps, signing,
striping, and traffic circles every
third intersection
Class III Rural Bike
Route $300,000 Shared lane pavement markings and signage Project Costs
Project costs can be highly variable, as such the cost
opinions developed for this Plan are provided as planninglevel guidance rather than precise costs. Bicycle facility costs were developed using a cost-per-mile approach
based on facility type, and the table below summarizes the associated low and high ranges.

Crossing improvement costs also 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).

Network-wide cost estimates for bicycle and intersection improvements are included in Appendix D.

Roadway extension and bridge projects are more complex
and do not fall within standard unit-cost ranges. Planninglevel estimates are therefore provided separately for the Adams Street extension and the Oak Avenue extension
(based on costs from the 2001 Specific Plan).

Funding
Implementation of the Streets Master Plan is expected
to rely on a combination of funding sources, recognizing that no single source will fully fund the recommended
program. Key funding tools include local revenues (such as Table 9: Probable cost ranges for proposed bikeways by facility type *Right-of-way (ROW), property acquisition, and earthwork-related costs are not included because they are highly variable by location. It is assumed that these additional costs would substantially increase the total cost of Class I projects identified as “high cost.” General Fund allocations, transportation and parks impact fees, and developer-required improvements), regional
funding sources, including Measure U sales tax revenues administered by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, and state and federal grant funding.

Projects are expected to advance in phases, with timing and sequencing guided by funding availability, grant
cycles, development activity, and inclusion in the City’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Recommendations
include layering multiple funding sources, aligning project readiness with funding opportunities, and strategically bundling projects, such as corridor-based, school
access, or safety-focused packages, to improve grant
competitiveness and delivery efficiency. Near- and midterm implementation is anticipated to focus on bicycle and pedestrian intersection projects, which are generally eligible for a broader range of funding sources. Larger roadway extension and bridge projects are expected
to advance more gradually, with early phases focused
on feasibility, environmental review, and right-of-way
coordination, followed by construction as long-term
funding becomes available.

Additional detail on funding tools and implementation
strategies is provided in Appendix H.

56 | Implementation
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law requiring public agencies to evaluate and disclose
potential environmental impacts before approving a
project. It supports responsible planning, informed
decision making, and public input.

Planning for CEQA early helps agencies choose the most
efficient review pathway, avoid delays, and anticipate
needed studies. It also allows teams to reduce risk and take advantage of exemptions where available. Senate Bill 71 (SB 71) reinforces this approach by making permanent a statutory CEQA exemption for certain low impact active transportation plan implementations, including restriping, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing, and related signage within the existing right of way.

Lower impact projects that improve safety and add bicycle or pedestrian facilities in the existing public right of way often qualify for simpler CEQA pathways or exemptions.

Higher impact projects such as new roadway extensions,
CEQA Pathways
Facility Type Lower Cost Description Higher Cost Description Potential CEQA Pathway Class I Bike Paths
Replace existing 5’ sidewalk
to 12’ shared use path + 5’
physical barrier along curb
line
Trail-like facility next to river
or creek (requires full new
construction)
Depending on location, whether in public right-of-way,
and existing conditions, these may be 1) exempt from
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Statute Section 21080.25* or
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, or 2) an IS-MND or EIR
would be required.

Class II Bike Lanes Eradicate existing markings
and stripe bike lanes
Resurface street and stripe
bike lanes
If within the public right-of-way, these may be exempt
from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Statute Section 21080.25*
or CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. If not eligible for one of these exemptions, an IS-MND or EIR may be required.

Class III Bike Boulevard
Shared lane pavement
markings and signage. Only
speed humps, signing and
striping
Shared lane pavement
markings and signage. Speed
humps, signing, striping, and
traffic circles every third
intersection
If within the public right-of-way, these may be exempt
from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Statute Section 21080.25*
or CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. If not eligible for one of these exemptions, an IS-MND or EIR may be required.

Class III Rural Bike
Route Shared lane pavement markings and signage
If within the public right-of-way, these may be exempt
from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Statute Section 21080.25*
or CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. If not eligible for one of these exemptions, an IS-MND or EIR may be required.

Intersection
Improvements ___ ___
If within the public right-of-way, these would likely be exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Statute Section
21080.25* or CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. If not
eligible for one of these exemptions, an IS-MND or EIR
may be required.

Roadway Extension and
Bridge Projects ___ ___ Likely, an IS-MND or EIR would be required.

Table 10: Potential CEQA Pathways by project type
vehicular bridge projects, or new Class I trails in corridors without existing paths are more likely to require an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) or some
form of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). An IS-MND uses an Initial Study to identify impacts and mitigation; an EIR is required when significant impacts cannot be clearly mitigated.

The table below is intended for city staff, project managers, consultants, and anyone involved in planning, designing, or delivering street, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. It provides a high-level overview of potential CEQA pathways for various project types to support early coordination and informed decision-making.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 57
Street, bicycle, pedestrian, roadway extension, and bridge projects are closely linked to the City’s stormwater
and utility systems. Any change within the right of way, whether building a new road, extending an existing
street, adding or upgrading sidewalks and bikeways,
reconfiguring intersections, or constructing new bridges and trails, can alter how stormwater is collected, conveyed, and treated. For both active transportation and roadway capital projects, this connection is especially important because grading, curb work, and drainage design directly influence infrastructure performance, user comfort, and long-term maintenance.

As a result, all street and multimodal projects, particularly new roadway extensions and bridge crossings, should
evaluate existing storm drain capacity, flood zones, soil conditions, and utility conflicts early in design. Doing so helps ensure new facilities remain functional during storms, avoid ponding in travel lanes, bikeways, or
crosswalks, and support long term system performance
Additional detail on the City’s stormwater and utility
systems is available in the Stormwater Technical Study
Appendix G.

Storm Drain and Watershed
Conditions
The Integrated Utility Master Plan (2021) evaluated St.

Helena’s water, storm drain, and sanitary sewer systems.

This Streets Master Plan builds on those findings, and
figures referenced in this chapter come from that study St. Helena lies within three major watersheds, Sulphur
Creek, Napa River, and York Creek, all of which ultimately drain to the Napa River and San Pablo Bay. The storm drain network conveys runoff to outfalls distributed across these waterways. These watershed corridors are also where
some of the City’s most important walking and biking
routes exist or are planned, and where proposed roadway extensions and bridge concepts occur, making stormwater performance a key consideration for both multimodal
access and new roadway connectivity.

The 2021 plan identified areas where storm drain pipes
have capacity deficiencies and recommended capital
improvement projects to address them (Figures 6.8 and

6.11). Many projects involve replacing older pipes with larger ones to better convey stormwater. Coordinating
these upgrades with planned bikeway, sidewalk, and
roadway projects can reduce costs and construction
disruption while ensuring new facilities are built on streets with reliable drainage.

Portions of the city, especially areas near the Napa River and Sulphur Creek, lie within the FEMA 1 percent annual chance (Figure 18) flood zones (Zones X and AE). These
areas often overlap with active transportation corridors and planned crossings, so projects in or near flood zones should prioritize resilient designs that maintain access for all modes during storms. In 2024, Caltrans completed storm drainage upgrades along State Route 29 between
Adams Street and Madrona Avenue, adding new pipes,
inlets, and manholes.

Stormwater and Utilities
Coordination

58 | Implementation
Bridges and Street Extensions
Proposed street extensions, such as the Adams Street
extension over the Napa River and the Oak Street
extension over Sulphur Creek, introduce added complexity due to their locations within river and creek corridors.

These projects must account for flood conveyance,
stormwater management, and environmental sensitivity.

Bridges over waterways in FEMA flood zones require
detailed engineering to ensure adequate flow during
major storm events and to prevent increasing flood
risks upstream or downstream. These crossings also
involve more complex permitting and coordination with
resource agencies. While they provide major opportunities to strengthen connectivity, their locations in sensitive corridors require careful, resilient design.

Green Infrastructure
Improving streets and stormwater systems together
presents multiple opportunities for green infrastructure.

Additional guidance on green infrastructure interventions and design strategies suitable for St. Helena is provided in the Green Infrastructure Toolkit; see Appendix A for more detail. At a high-level green infrastructure opportunities include:
+ Leveraging existing storm drains: Streets with
storm drain mains offer cost effective opportunities
to add bike lanes, sidewalk upgrades, or roadway
enhancements alongside bioretention because
conveyance systems already exist.
+ Addressing storm drain deficiencies: Streets with
undersized storm drain pipes present opportunities
to slow and treat runoff using green infrastructure,
helping reduce stress on older parts of the system.
+ Coordinating with planned CIPs: Where storm drain
upgrades are scheduled, the same construction
window can incorporate roadway, bikeway, sidewalk,
or streetscape improvements for coordinated delivery.
+ Using streetscape amenities: Landscaped areas,
medians, and parking lanes can accommodate rain
gardens, bioswales, and pervious pavement, helping
reduce runoff and improve water quality.
+ Taking advantage of favorable soils: Much of St.

Helena contains soil types suitable for infiltration,
making bioretention and pervious pavement highly
effective and a strong first consideration for capital
projects.

Additional Considerations
+ Reliance on infiltration in rural areas: Streets without storm drain infrastructure, often outside central
St. Helena and the downtown area, must use fully
infiltration-based green infrastructure. These systems
may require additional engineering where drainage
cannot connect to a storm drain main.
+ Site and soil constraints: Infiltration measures
must be located carefully to avoid impacts on
building foundations, road base materials, or other
improvements. Where soils are favorable, systems
can still be installed without perforated pipes or
storm drain connections.
+ Utility conflicts: Existing underground utilities may limit where green infrastructure can be placed.

If conflicts prevent installation within the street,
nearby City owned parcels may serve as alternative
sites while still supporting roadway and active
transportation projects by reducing surface runoff and
improving corridor resilience.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 59
Figure 17: St. Helena Flood Zones. Source: St. Helena General Plan Update 2040.

60 | CITY OF ST. HELENA
Key Projects
6

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 61
This section presents three key street
projects: the Adams Street Extension, the
Oak Street Extension, and the Spring Street
corridor. These projects were selected for
further exploration because they scored
highly in prioritization process, play
important roles in the citywide network, and
were identified through discussions with
City staff as opportunities for meaningful
multimodal and operational improvements.

Together, these projects represent key opportunities to improve connectivity, accessibility, and safety. The Adams Street Extension offers the potential to create a new east– west link across the Napa River, reducing reliance on Pope Street and Pratt Avenue while relieving congestion on
Main Street and enhancing emergency access and egress.

The Oak Street Extension, which would cross Sulphur
Creek, could provide another important local connection, relieving pressure on nearby corridors and improving
access to schools, neighborhoods, and community
destinations. Spring Street, a key neighborhood corridor, presents opportunities to enhance walking and biking
comfort, calm traffic, and strengthen access to nearby
schools, parks, and residential areas.

This section includes preliminary design ideas and
high-level cost opinions (Appendix E) for each project
illustrating potential design approaches and offering an initial foundation for future refinement, funding efforts, and coordination with partner agencies.

62 | Key Projects
Overview
Spring Street is a critical east–west corridor in St. Helena, linking established residential areas to Main Street,
Oak Avenue, and key community destinations, including
St. Helena Primary School and downtown. Because the
corridor serves many school-age children, community
members emphasized the importance of creating safe,
comfortable bikeways that encourage students to bike to school and build lifelong active transportation habits.

With the City preparing to restripe the corridor as part of its pavement rehabilitation program, there is a timely opportunity to build on that momentum and explore a
more robust, long-term multimodal design. This Plan
advances concept development for Spring Street between
Valley View Street and Oak Avenue, the portion where
conditions are most constrained and where improvements
would offer the greatest community benefit.

Existing Conditions
Although Spring Street is classified as a residential
street with a 25-mph speed limit, it functions as a
primary neighborhood connector and a vital link in the
community’s school access network. Community feedback
also noted that drivers often travel faster than the posted speed, creating uncomfortable and unsafe conditions for people walking and biking.

The character of the corridor shifts noticeably along
its length: the western end transitions from a more
rural, agricultural edge, moves through established
residential blocks, and reaches the edge of downtown
near Oak Avenue, where activity levels increase and street uses intensify. These transitions influence how people
walk, bike, and drive along the corridor and highlight
opportunities to tailor design strategies in different
segments.

There are no dedicated bicycle facilities, and on-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street. Given Spring Street’s direct connection to Oak Avenue, one of St. Helena’s primary school-access corridors, the lack of continuous sidewalks and bike facilities creates notable safety challenges, especially during school peak hours.

Community input also highlighted Spring Street as a
corridor where pedestrian visibility and crossing comfort could be improved south of downtown.

These functional issues, combined with the corridor’s
changing context and the scheduled pavement work, make
Spring Street a strong candidate for reconfiguration to better support walking, biking, and safe neighborhood
circulation.

Spring Street has an approximately 50-foot right-of-way with a varying curb-to-curb width of between 38’-40’.

Sidewalks are inconsistent:
+ The north side has a 5-foot sidewalk, but its usability is significantly compromised by large utility poles and vegetation encroachments, often forcing people into
the roadway.
+ The south side lacks continuous sidewalk, and
residents, including school-age children, frequently
walk within the parking lane, creating uncomfortable
and unsafe conditions.

Design Concept
The design approach for Spring Street focuses on creating a continuous, all-ages bicycle and pedestrian facility
that improves safety and comfort while responding to
the corridor’s mix of residential, park, and school-area uses. The primary design strategy is the introduction of a shared sidepath on the south side of the street, where sidewalk coverage is inconsistent today. The sidepath
is intended to be wide enough for school-aged children
and other less-confident riders to travel without entering the roadway, offering a safer alternative to mixed-traffic conditions. Sharrows in the roadway would serve more
confident riders who prefer or need to travel in-lane.

Valley View Street to Hudson Avenue
Between Valley View and Hudson, the design proposes
removing on-street parking on the south side to
accommodate an 8-foot sidepath. The proposed sidepath
would be constructed alongside the existing landscaping and sidewalk at the south edge of the street.

Spring Street

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 63
Hudson Avenue to Starr Baldwin Park
Between Hudson and Starr Baldwin Park, the design
proposes removing on-street parking on the south side to continue the 8-foot sidepath. Areas of existing sidewalk on the south side would be retained, and the new sidepath would connect directly to it.

Starr Baldwin Park to Oak Avenue
Between Starr Baldwin Park and Oak, parking demand is
higher due to proximity to downtown and Main Street. In this segment, parking would be maintained on both sides of the street. To improve pedestrian comfort, sidewalks on both sides should be widened from 5 feet to 6 feet,
allowing for more space for pedestrians and children on bicycles traveling at very slow speeds.

Intersection Improvements
Improvements at Crane Avenue and Spring Street are
included in the City’s FY 2024–25 Pavement Restoration
Project. Proposed upgrades include new curb and gutter, an upgraded ADA curb ramp, a high-visibility crosswalk, removal of a tree at the southwest corner to improve
sight lines, and installation of a pedestrian-yield sign.

As part of this Plan, improvements are also proposed at Spring Street and Kearney Street. These include restriping the existing crosswalks and adding a high-visibility
yellow school crossing on the west leg of the intersection.

Curb extensions with ADA-compliant curb ramps and
new landscaping are proposed on the south side of the
intersection to receive and shorten the crossing. Driveway access would be maintained on both sides of the curb
extension.

Placemaking and Traffic-Calming Elements
To reinforce safety, comfort, and corridor identity, the project incorporates greening and traffic-calming features throughout the alignment. These include landscaped
curb extensions, speed humps, and other features that
shorten crossing distances and help reduce vehicle
speeds. Additional lighting and wayfinding signage are
recommended to improve nighttime visibility and overall bicycle and pedestrian experience. During the April 2025 public workshop, community members expressed strong
interest in traffic-slowing strategies, and the proposed speed humps were positively received as a response to
concerns about vehicle speeds along Spring Street.

Group walks in roadway on Spring Street where there are no sidewalks on south side (2024) Spring Street functions as a primary neighborhood connector and is used by both pedestrians and bicyclists (2024)

64 | Key Projects
Figure 18: Proposed Spring Street Key Plan
ST. HELENA

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

SPRING STREET

SPRING STREET

TRANSITION EXISTING SIDEWALK

TO PROPOSED SIDEPATH
1 3
2 A
C
BIK
5'

EXISTING

SIDEWALK
8'

PARKING
LANE
R.O.W.
6'

PROPOSED

SIDEWALK
8'

PARKING LANE

W/ LANDSCAPING
R.O.W.

LEGEND

SPEED CUSHION LOCATIONS
NOTES

1. PLAN VIEW IS DIAGRAMMATIC. 200' 400' 600'
0 S

INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS

VINE TRAIL

EXISTING SIDEWALK

PROPOSED SIDEWALK

VALLEY VIEW
STREET

HUDSON AVENUE

HUDSON AVENUE

ALLYN AVENUE

CRANE AVENUE

STOCKTON STREET

OAK AVENUE

ST JAMES DRIVE

KEARNY STREET

PROPOSED

SIDEWALK
W
LEGEND

SPEED CUSHION LOCATIONS
NOTES

1. PLAN VIEW IS DIAGRAMMATIC.
200' 400' 600'

SCALE IN FEET
0 IS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING

ALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS NTAINED HEREIN.

INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS

VINE TRAIL

EXISTING SIDEWALK

PROPOSED SIDEWALK

PROPOSED SIDEPATH
A
3 2
1 NTS

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 65
Figure 19: Proposed Spring Street Typical Cross Sections 38’ EXISTING CURB-TO-CURB
' 11 ' 11 ' 8 8' ' 6 ' 6
11' 11' 8'

CLASS III

BIKE ROUTE

CLASS III

BIKE ROUTE

PROPOSED

SIDEPATH
5'

EXISTING

SIDEWALK
VARIES

EXISTING

LANDSCAPING
5'

EXISTING

SIDEWALK
8'

PARKING
LANE
R.O.W.

R.O.W.
38' EXISTING CURB-TO-CURB
5'

EXISTING

SIDEWALK
8'

PARKING

W/ LANDS
R.O.W.
11' 11' 6'

CLASS III

BIKE ROUTE

CLASS III

BIKE ROUTE

PROPOSED

SIDEWALK
6'

PROPOSED

SIDEWALK
8'

PARKING LANE

W/ LANDSCAPING
8'

PARKING LANE

W/ LANDSCAPING
40' EXISTING CURB-TO-CURB
R.O.W.

R.O.W.

SPRING
1 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - PROPOSED

SPRING STREET - VALLEY VIEW ST TO HUDSON AVE
I
SPR
3 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - PROPOSED

SPRING STREET - STARR BALDWIN PARK TO OAK AVE

SCHOOL CROSSING (TYP)

YIELD LINE (TYP)

SPRING STREET

TEERTS YNRAEK
VALLEY VIEW ST TO HUDSON AVE 1
24'
5'

EXISTING

SIDEWALK
R.O.W.
11' 11' 8'

CLASS III

BIKE ROUTE

CLASS III

BIKE ROUTE

PROPOSED

SIDEPATH
5'

EXISTING

SIDEWALK
8'

PARKING LANE

W/ LANDSCAPING
R.O.W.

R.O.W.
38' EXISTING CURB-TO-CURB
R.O.W.
2 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - PROPOSED

SPRING STREET - HUDSON AVE TO STARR BALDWIN PARK

SHARED LANE
MARKING (SHARROW0

TEERTS Y
2: Longer-Term)
5’ 8’ 11’ 8’

HUDSON AVE TO STARR BALDWIN PARK
38’ EXISTING CURB-TO-CURB
11’
2 5’ 8’ 11’ 11’ 8’ 5’
24'
11' 11' 8'

CLASS III

BIKE ROUTE

CLASS III

BIKE ROUTE

PROPOSED

SIDEPATH
5'
STING
WALK
VARIES

EXISTING

LANDSCAPING
5'

EXISTING

SIDEWALK
8'

PARKING
LANE
R.O.W.
38' EXISTING CURB-TO-CURB
11'
CLASS

BIKE ROU
5'

EXISTING

SIDEWALK
8'

PARKING LANE

W/ LANDSCAPING
R.O.W.
3 40' EXISTING CURB-TO-CURB
R.O.W.
1 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - PROPOSED

SPRING STREET - VALLEY VIEW ST TO HUDSON AVE

TYPICAL CROSS

SPRING STREET - HUDSON
TEERTS
sign Concept (Option 2: Longer-Term)

66 | Key Projects
24'
' 11 ' 11 ' 8 8' ' 6 ' 6
' 05
VARIES

EXISTING

LANDSCAPING
5'

EXISTING

SIDEWALK
R.O.W.
11' 11' 8'

CLASS III

BIKE ROUTE

CLASS III

BIKE ROUTE

PROPOSED

SIDEPATH
5'

EXISTING

SIDEWALK
8'

PARKING LANE

W/ LANDSCAPING
R.O.W.

R.O.W.
38' EXISTING CURB-TO-CURB
6'

PROPOSED

SIDEWALK
E
NG
R.O.W.

SHEET 3

SPRING STREET CONCEPTUAL PLAN

A INTERSECTION ENLARGEMENT

SPRING ST AND KEARNY ST
2 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - PROPOSED

SPRING STREET - HUDSON AVE TO STARR BALDWIN PARK

SHARED LANE
MARKING (SHARROW0

MAINTAIN DRIVEWAY
ACCESS

SCHOOL CROSSING (TYP)

YIELD LINE (TYP)

CURB EXTENSION

WITH LANDSCAPING

SPRING STREET

TEERTS YNRAEK
20' 40' 60'

SCALE IN FEET
0 g)

SPRING ST AND KEARNY ST A
NTS
Figure 20: Proposed Spring Street Typical Cross Sections and Intersection Improvements ' 11 ' 11 ' 8 8' ' 6 ' 6
11' 11' 6'

CLASS III

BIKE ROUTE

CLASS III

BIKE ROUTE

PROPOSED

SIDEWALK
6'

PROPOSED

SIDEWALK
8'

PARKING LANE

W/ LANDSCAPING
8'

PARKING LANE

W/ LANDSCAPING
40' EXISTING CURB-TO-CURB
R.O.W.

R.O.W.

S
SPRIN
1 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - PROPOSED

SPRING STREET - VALLEY VIEW ST TO HUDSON AVE
3 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - PROPOSED

SPRING STREET - STARR BALDWIN PARK TO OAK AVE

SCHOOL CROSSIN

YIELD LINE (TYP)

SPRING STREET
6’ 8’ 11’ 8’ 6’
40’ EXISTING CURB-TO-CURB

STARR BALDWIN PARK TO OAK AVE
11’
3

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 67
Overview
Adams Street, which currently ends at a field and walking path, is planned for extension east to Silverado Trail.

The need for this extension is established in the St.

Helena General Plan 2040 Update, and Adams Street
scored highly, both as a future bikeway and as a roadway extension, through this Plan’s public engagement and
prioritization process (outlined in previous chapters).

Operations analysis conducted for this Plan using Synchro further underscores its importance, showing that the
Adams Street extension would meaningfully reduce
congestion on Main Street by creating a new east–west
alternative (see Appendix F for Synchro findings). The
extension improves performance at several of the city’s most constrained intersections, including Main Street/
Pope Street–Mitchell Drive, Main Street/Adams Street, and Main Street/Hunt Avenue. A new intersection at Silverado Trail is also supported and is expected to operate
acceptably with appropriate traffic control.

The first phase of the extension is already advancing
as part of planned development, including the Hunter
Subdivision (87 units) and the 1001 Adams Street Hotel
(75 guestrooms and 13 residences). As part of design
development for the Hunter Subdivision, there are design plans developed for the extents between the existing
terminus of Adams Street to Starr Avenue, establishing
the initial segment of the future corridor.

This Streets Master Plan carries the vision forward by
planning the next segment of the extension, from just
north of Starr Avenue to Silverado Trail. Completing
this link will create a continuous multimodal connection across the Napa River and into the city’s eastern roadway network, essential for establishing a coherent street
structure for planned development, expanding access to
the Vine Trail, and strengthening the overall circulation system.

The extension also brings important engineering
considerations. For roughly 1,000 feet, the corridor would run atop an existing levee, where the proposed 46-foot
multimodal cross section (Figures 21 and 22) can be
accommodated but requires careful design to maintain
FEMA accreditation. Stormwater must be managed
through sheet flow off the levee, and geotechnical review is needed to address potential settlement from added
pavement weight and vehicular loading. North of the levee, the corridor crosses a FEMA-designated floodplain and
floodway, where a viaduct structure is anticipated to avoid placing fill that could adversely affect flood storage or conveyance. The alignment also intersects a permanently protected habitat restoration area, requiring early
coordination with environmental permitting specialists.

Utility upgrades, including the replacement of an existing 4-inch water line with an 8-inch line, must also be
integrated into the project.

Together, these considerations underscore both the
value and the complexity of the Adams Street extension.

The project would support planned growth, enhance
multimodal travel, relieve pressure on Main Street, and improve emergency access and egress, while requiring
thoughtful engineering and environmental coordination to ensure long-term performance and resilience.

Planning and Policy Context
The Adams Street extension concept is supported by and
builds on several prior and concurrent efforts, including:
+ St. Helena 2040 General Plan, Figure 5.3 – Future
Roadway Extensions.
+ Hunter Subdivision Plan Set (January 23, 2023), which advances the corridor from Hudson Avenue to Starr
Avenue.
+ Streets Master Plan Roadway Project Alternatives
Analysis (Fehr & Peers, 2025), which evaluates the
operational benefits of an Adams Street extension
from 899 Adams Street to Silverado Trail (Appendix F).

Adams Street Extension

68 | Key Projects
Existing Conditions
Today, Adams Street extends from Hudson Avenue to
approximately 200 feet southwest of Grove Court. It
functions as a collector street with an approximate 60-foot right-of-way, two travel lanes, unmarked parallel parking on both sides, and 6-foot sidewalks (with sidewalk present only on the south side northeast of Library Lane). East of its current terminus, the corridor transitions to a levee and open space, with no existing vehicular crossing of the Napa River or connection to Silverado Trail.

Key map of Adams Street Extension (top right), aerial image of Adams Street Extension (bottom) Napa River
Spri ng Mtn Rd
Meadow Ln
Fulton Ln
Pratt Ave
Pope St
Adams St
La Fata St
Vintage Ave
Oak Ave
Main St
Fir Hill Dr Madrona Ave
Grayson Ave
Vallejo St
Sulphur Springs Ave
Crane Ave
Spring St
Dean York Dr
Silverado Trl
Napa River
Sulphur Creek
Starr Ave
College Ave
Allison Ave
Charter Oak Ave
Lewelling Ln
Adams Street Extension
NTS
Main St
Railroad Ave
Silverado Trail
Hunt Ave
Fulton Ln
Meadow Ln
Downtown Specific Plan
Boundary
School
City Facility
Major Park
Railroad

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 69
Figure 21: Proposed Adam Street Extension Alignment and Key Plan Design Concept
The Adams Street extension proposed in this Plan would
extend the corridor from just north of Starr Avenue to
Silverado Trail near the Meadwood Lane intersection.

The alignment would follow the crest of an existing
levee for approximately 1,000 feet before transitioning to a viaduct over the FEMA regulatory floodway and a
Habitat Restoration Area. The existing levee crown is
approximately 48 feet wide, sufficient to accommodate
the planned 46-foot roadway cross section (accounting for buffer area on each side) (Figure 22). A bridge crossing the Napa River is also proposed. It should be noted that the portion of Adams Street Extension located outside of city limits (including the proposed bridge) would require inter-jurisdictional coordination and ROW acquisition.

Proposed
Alignment
Proposed
Bridge over
Napa River
Levee
Extents
A
B
1 NTS
Limits of Viaduct
Structure through
FEMA Floodway
Limits of Viaduct
Structure through
FEMA Floodway

70 | Key Projects
12'
11'
11'
2'
7'
51'
35'
11' 11' 10'

TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE SHARED USE PATH
6' 2' 6'

SHOULDER

GUARDRAIL

BARRIER
12' 11' 11'
2'
11'
6' 11' 11'
20' 40' 60'

SCALE IN FEET
1 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - PROPOSED

ADAMS STREET - STARR AVE TO SILVERADO TRAIL N
NION.

A INTERSECTION ENLARGEMENT

ADAMS STREET AND STARR AVENUE

STARR AVENUE

ADAMS STREET CON
20' 40' 60'

SCALE IN FEET
0 INTERSECTION ENLARG

ADAMS STREET AND SILVER

ED CORNER

SHARED USE PATH

ADAMS STREET

SHARED USE PATH

YIELD LINE
In addition to supporting future vehicular travel and
helping relieve congestion along parallel corridors, the design would also include a shared-use path along the
eastern edge of the levee. Bicyclists and runners currently use informal loops along the levee and within subdivisions east of Starr Avenue and south of Adams Street;
participants expressed strong interest in formalizing
these routes and improving connections to them. The
Adams Street extension provides an opportunity to do so in a coordinated way, creating a safer, continuous facility that could serve as part of a larger active transportation network.

Figure 22: Proposed Adam Street Extension Alignment Typical Cross Section Proposed Cross Section
+ Two 11-foot travel lanes
+ Guardrails on either side of the travel lane
+ 10-foot shared-use path (on the south side)
+ 6-foot shoulders
Viaduct / Bridge Structure Cross Section
The proposed viaduct/bridge cross section is similar
to the levee segment and consists of two 12-foot travel lanes, one 12-foot shared-use path on the south side, and two 3-foot shoulders with bridge sidewalls/guardrails,
for a total structure width of 42 feet. The section provides a continuous physical separation between travel lanes
and the shared-use path and accommodates a more
substantial sidewall/railing elements required (compared to typical roadside guardrail on the levee).
6’ 2’ 11’ 11’ 10’ 6’
STARR AVE TO SILVERADO TRAIL 1

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 71
Key Intersections
Adams Street and
Starr Avenue
At the intersection of Starr Avenue and the
Adams Street extension, the corridor will
transition from the Hunter Subdivision’s
planned on-street bike lanes on both sides
of Adams Street to a shared-use path
located on the south side. This intersection
serves as the formal transition point and
will include appropriate bicycle conflict
markings to guide riders through the shift
in facility type. A protected corner will be
provided for people biking east on Adams
Street who wish to turn right, improving
comfort and reducing turning conflicts.

A high-visibility crosswalk on the
south side of the intersection will
allow pedestrians to transition safely
between the sidewalk on the south side
of Starr Avenue and the shared-use path
continuing north of Starr Avenue.

Adams Street and
Silverado Trail
A new intersection at Adams Street and
Silverado Trail is proposed to include
a traffic signal and high-visibility
crosswalks on the south and east legs,
each equipped with ADA-compliant curb
ramps to ensure accessible crossings
for all users. Bicycle conflict markings
are planned across Silverado Trail to
connect the existing bike lanes through
the intersection, improving continuity
and visibility for riders. A two-stage turn
box is also proposed to support bicyclists
turning left from Adams Street onto
Silverado Trail..

Figure 23: Adam Street Extension Proposed Designs for Key Intersections A
B

ADAMS ST AND STARR AVE

ADAMS ST AND SILVERADO TRAIL

72 | Key Projects
Additional Viaduct / Bridge
Design Considerations
As the corridor leaves the top of the levee to cross the Napa River and adjacent floodplain, the project would
retain the same multimodal cross section using a viaduct structure. A viaduct is anticipated because it avoids
placing fill within FEMA-designated flood zones and
floodways, an action that could reduce flood storage
capacity or adversely impact flood conveyance conditions in the surrounding area.

The eastern portion of the alignment also passes through a habitat restoration area permanently preserved under
a conservation agreement with the Land Trust of Napa
County. Early coordination with environmental permitting specialists will be required to determine feasible
structure placement, construction methods, and mitigation measures within this protected area.

Additional Levee
Design Considerations
To reduce erosion risk and comply with California’s
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (Provision
C.3), the roadway and shared-use path atop the levee
would be constructed at grade and without curb and
gutter, allowing stormwater to sheet flow evenly off
both sides into adjacent vegetated areas. This avoids
concentrating runoff, which can accelerate erosion on
steep levee slopes, and supports the required low-impact development (LID) approach.

The levee surroundings can function as self-retaining LID areas if grading maintains an acceptable ratio between
impervious and pervious surfaces (generally up to 2:1).

C.3 requires that 100 percent of required runoff treatment be met through LID measures such as infiltration,
evapotranspiration, and biotreatment. Additional
hydrologic analysis is needed to verify that the existing detention basin and pump station on the inboard side
of the levee can accommodate runoff generated by new
impervious pavement.

Geotechnical review will also be required to assess
settlement potential from placing new pavement atop the levee, as asphalt concrete is heavier than existing soils.

Maintaining current levee crest elevations is essential for preserving FEMA accreditation, and localized grade
adjustments or pre-loading strategies may be needed to
address short- and long-term settlement.

During public engagement, participants also raised
questions about how the elevated portion of the corridor on the levee would relate to adjacent land uses. There was interest in exploring opportunities to improve connectivity between the levee-top alignment and nearby properties,
trails, and open spaces, ensuring that this segment is
integrated with the surrounding neighborhood fabric and supports accessibility where feasible.

View from top of existing levee looking towards the Napa River Habitat restoration area looking towards levee from Napa River

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 73
Overview
Oak Avenue runs from Hillview Place to Mitchell Drive,
ending just west of Sulphur Creek, and has long been
recognized as an important corridor within St. Helena’s transportation network. Its importance is reinforced by the planned alignment of the Vine Trail along Oak Avenue, which establishes the street as a key multimodal spine
and elevates the value of extending it to strengthen
citywide connectivity for people walking and bicycling.

The idea of extending the corridor has been part of
St. Helena’s planning framework for more than two
decades. First introduced in the Highway 29 Specific Plan (2001/2005) and carried forward in the 2040 General Plan, Oak Avenue is identified as a potential future east–west connection capable of reducing pressure on Main Street/ Highway 29 and improving access to schools and downtown.

As part of this Streets Master Plan, the Oak Avenue
extension concept was re-evaluated using current
operational data, environmental constraints, and rightof-way conditions. Updated Synchro traffic operations analysis (see Appendix F) shows that extending Oak
Avenue would provide the most significant congestion
relief of the three roadway alternatives studied
(Adams Street Extension, Oak Street Extension, Pope
Street Bridge), reducing volumes on Main Street and
improving operations near school access points. These
findings reaffirm the corridor’s longstanding value and demonstrate how the extension could enhance multimodal
connectivity while improving citywide traffic performance Feasibility considerations dating back to the early 2000s acknowledged that the extension may need to advance in
two phases. This Plan formalizes that understanding:
+ Phase 1: Mitchell Drive to Charter Oak Avenue,
including a new bridge over Sulphur Creek, is the
most feasible and highest-value segment.
+ Phase 2: Charter Oak Avenue to Grayson Avenue faces
significant right-of-way and access challenges and it
will be difficult to construct under current conditions.

This Plan does not advance a new conceptual design
for Oak Avenue. Instead, it compiles key findings from
previous planning documents and provides updated
insights on environmental, access-related, and multimodal considerations that should be evaluated in future design phases. Updated planning-level cost estimates (Appendix E) based on the 2001 Highway 29 Specific Plan, the
only document containing cost assumptions for the full
extension, are also provided.

Planning and Policy Context
The Oak Avenue extension is grounded in several previous planning efforts:
+ Highway 29 Specific Plan (2001)
+ Highway 29 Specific Plan (2005)
+ 2040 General Plan Update, 5-Circulation: Figure 5.3
Future Roadway Extensions
+ 2040 General Plan Update, 5-Circulation: Figure 5.5
Bicycle Network
Existing Conditions
Oak Avenue currently runs from Hillview Place to Mitchell Drive, terminating just west of Sulphur Creek. Along this segment, Oak Avenue functions as a collector street with a 45–50-foot right-of-way and the following characteristics:
+ 6-foot sidewalks on both sides through most of the
corridor with the exception of:
+ Sidewalk only on the west side south of Spring
Street
+ Sidewalk only on the west side north of Madrona
Avenue
+ Intermittent 2–3-foot landscape strip at the street
edge
+ Two travel lanes
+ Unmarked parallel parking on both sides of the street Oak Avenue Extension

74 | Key Projects
Key map of Oak Avenue Extension (top), aerial image of Oak Avenue Extension (bottom) Spri ng Mtn Rd
Fulton Ln
Pratt Ave
Pope St
Mills Ln
Adams St
Dowdell Ln
La Fata St
Vintage Ave
Chaix Ln
White Ln
Oak Ave
Main St
Fir Hill Dr Madrona Ave
Grayson Ave
Vallejo St
Sulphur Springs Ave
Crane Ave
Spring St
Dean York Dr
Howell M
Sulphur Creek
Starr Ave
College Ave
Allison Ave
Charter Oak Ave
Lewelling Ln
Oak Ave Extension to Charter Oak Ave
Oak Ave Extension to Grayson Ave
Oak Ave
SR 29 Mitchell Dr
Charter Oak Ave
Vidovich Ln
Grayson Ave
Sulphur Creek
NTS
Downtown Specific Plan
Boundary
School
City Facility
Major Park
Railroad

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 75
Key Opportunities
+ Active Modes Connectivity: Moves pedestrians
and bicycles off Highway 29. Because the existing
segment of Oak Avenue will already host the Vine
Trail, the extension builds directly on this established multimodal spine, further strengthening Oak Avenue’s
role as a key corridor for people walking and biking.
+ School Connectivity: Improved connection between
residential areas and downtown St. Helena including
St. Helena High and Primary Schools.
+ Reducing Traffic Congestion: By promoting walking
and biking among students, the need for vehicular
drop-offs and pickups at schools can be reduced. This
will help alleviate congestion around school entrances
and improve traffic flow in the area. The extension
also provides an alternative to Main Street, helping
distribute demand across the network.
+ Flood Mitigation: Possibility to create overflow
channels at Sulphur Creek crossing to help mitigate
flooding issues.

Key Constraints
+ Flood Risk: Sulphur Creek is within both 100-year and 500-year flood plains. A street extension across the
creek will need to account for both frequent flooding
events and rare, severe flooding scenarios.
+ Environmental Management: Sulphur Creek supports
valuable wetland and riparian habitats that must
be preserved and protected, ensuring they are not
compromised by any proposed extension or bridge.
+ Congested Intersection: Crossing design at
intersections, especially at Grayson Ave, will need to
be thoroughly studied to ensure safe connection to St.

Helena High School.
+ Access Management: From the Highway 29 Specific
Plan: “vehicular access [driveways] shall be directed
to side streets so that drivers can take advantage
of the new signalized intersection at Grayson/Mills/
Highway 29 and/or the signalized intersection at
Highway 29/ Dowdell Lane.” However, rerouting traffic
can introduce complexity in determining how drivers
will adapt to these changes and how side streets will
handle increased traffic volumes.
+ ROW Acquisitions/Conflict: An extension will
require acquiring additional right-of-way, which is
complicated and costly. Strategies to address these
challenges will include engaging property owners
early, using easements where possible, and seeking
funding to offset acquisition costs.

Prior Design Concepts
Previous planning efforts have outlined different concepts for bicycle and roadway facilities along the Oak Avenue extension. The General Plan 2040 Proposed Bike Network
envisions a Class I shared-use path from Mitchell Drive to Charter Oak Avenue and Class II bike lanes from Charter Oak to Grayson Avenue.

The 2001 Highway 29 Specific Plan proposed a cross
section with 6-foot sidewalks, 4-foot landscape strips, and 8-foot shoulders/parking on both sides, along with a 12- foot travel lane (Figure 24), while the 2005 Specific Plan carried these elements forward and added 4-foot bike
lanes (Figure 25). Both of these Specific Plan designs are outdated and will need to be revised based on current best practices for active transportation facilities.

Additional Considerations
Both Specific Plans identify the Oak Avenue extension as a 40 mph roadway with a 45 mph design speed, a higher
speed scenario than today’s Oak Avenue, where much of
the corridor operates around 15 mph due to the school
zone context. If a 40 mph posted and design speed is
retained, the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide recommends
higher protection bicycle facility options. However, even with a Class I facility alongside the extension, people would still have to cross a high speed roadway at key
points, raising comfort and safety concerns. As a result, retaining a 40 mph posted speed on the extension is
unlikely and not recommended, since it would not align

76 | Key Projects
Figure 24: Proposed Oak Street Extension Typical Cross Section, Highway 29 Specific Plan, 2001 FHWA Bikeway Selection Graphic
Figure 25: Proposed Oak Street Extension Typical Cross Section, Highway 29 Specific Plan, 2005 with or adequately serve bicycle and pedestrian travel in this area.

Several potential safety and multimodal enhancements
should also be considered as part of any future Oak
Avenue extension. Installing a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon or a full signal at Oak Avenue and Grayson Avenue would improve pedestrian visibility and crossing safety, while additional traffic-calming measures could further enhance comfort for people walking or rolling along the corridor.

These ideas align closely with what the community has
voiced throughout the planning process. Community
members emphasized that high-quality bicycle and
pedestrian facilities should be a top priority for this connection, with some even expressing interest in a
pedestrian- and bicycle-only extension.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTER PLAN | 77
St Helena Streets
Master Plan

St Helena Streets Master Plan
Appendices
A-H

St Helena Streets Master Plan
Appendix A
Streetscape Toolkits

2 |
Information contained in this document is for planning purposes and should not be used for final design of any project. All results, recommendations, concept drawings, cost opinions, and commentary contained herein are based on limited data and information and on existing conditions that are subject to change.

Contents
Amenities and Placemaking Toolkit.........................4 St. Helena Character..............................................................4 Building on Related Efforts...................................................4 Streetscape Amenities..........................................................6 Street Trees + Understory Planting
Bike Facilities
Seating
Pedestrian Scale Lighting
Transit Shelters
Public Art
Signage + Wayfinding
Street Typology + Amenities Matrix....................................13 Green Infrastructure Toolkit........................................16 Regulatory Framework..........................................................16 Green Infrastructure Measures............................................17 Impervious Connection to Vegetated Areas
Interceptor Tree Planting and Preservation
Pervious Pavement Systems
Bioretention Facilities
Flow-Through Stormwater Control Measures
Landscape-based Flow-Through
Physically Structured
Subsurface Infiltration Stormwater Control Measures
Street Typology + Green Infrastructure Matrix.................27 Additional Considerations.....................................................30

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 3

4 |
The Streetscape Amenities and Placemaking
Toolkit serves as a resource for City of St.

Helena staff and the public, offering guidance
on various streetscape elements and their
application across different roadway types.

This toolkit aims to offer context-sensitive
considerations that enhance the character and
experience of St. Helena’s streetscapes and
public spaces. It should be used in partnership
with the Green Infrastructure Toolkit to ensure
that the selection, design, and placement
of green infrastructure and streetscape
amenities complement one another. By
aligning these efforts, the city can create
streetscapes that both manage stormwater
effectively and enhance the public realm.

St. Helena Character
St. Helena’s historic downtown, with its blend of Victorian, Craftsman, and Spanish Revival architecture, serves as
a vibrant hub for residents and visitors alike. Anchored by an active Main Street lined with family-owned
wineries, farm-to-table restaurants, artisan boutiques, and independent bookstores, this commercial core is
more than just a shopping and dining destination—it is
a gathering place that fosters St. Helena’s close-knit
community spirit. Public spaces, such as Lyman Park,
further enhance downtown’s role as a center for cultural and social connection.

Amenities and
Placemaking Toolkit
St. Helena Historic Downtown

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 5
Beyond downtown, St. Helena’s tree-lined neighborhoods
are home to families, children, and longtime residents, reinforcing the need for safe, walkable, and bike-friendly streets that support both daily commutes and recreational activities. Well-connected sidewalks in residential
neighborhoods allow students to walk to schools like St.

Helena Elementary and Robert Louis Stevenson Middle
School, encouraging pedestrian activity and making the
area feel more connected.

In addition to its formal street network, many of St.

Helena’s agricultural roads double as walking paths and recreational spaces, providing residents and visitors with scenic routes through vineyards and open landscapes.

These roads, often lined with oak trees and vineyard rows, serve as informal connectors between neighborhoods,
wineries, and the surrounding countryside, offering
opportunities for walking, jogging, and cycling in a setting that reflects the region’s agricultural heritage.

As a regional destination in Napa County, St. Helena
connects with nearby communities like Calistoga and
Rutherford while maintaining its intimate small-town
charm. Its proximity to the Vine Trail and scenic backroads makes it a key destination for cyclists. Its identity is also deeply tied to its natural surroundings, with Sulphur
Creek meandering through town and the Napa River
shaping its northern edge. These waterways provide
essential ecological functions, from habitat preservation to stormwater filtration, underscoring the importance of integrating green infrastructure into streetscape design.

Building on Related Efforts
More specific guidelines and specifications for future
streetscape amenities, including the selection and
detailing of furnishings, landscape elements, paving
materials, and related streetscape components, outside
of downtown should align with the Downtown Specific
Plan. The Downtown Specific Plan is intended to serve as the base framework for the rest of the city, establishing unified design themes and standards that can be applied citywide, with context-sensitive variation in placement, frequency, type, and scale by street.

However, at the time of writing the Downtown Specific
Plan is currently on pause at the direction of City Council.

Until it is restarted, the Cultivate St. Helena Plan should serve as the primary policy and design reference for nearterm improvements and streetscape decisions.

Stockton Street is an example of one of many tree-lined residential corridors in St. Helena

6 |
Streetscape Amenities
The following provides an overview of the components of streetscape amenities and key considerations for these
elements in St. Helena. Following this overview, a matrix summarizes the suitability and considerations for various amenities based on the city’s street typology.

Street Trees + Understory Planting
St. Helena is proud to be one of more than 3,400 Tree
Cities USA, a designation that encourages the growth of trees within municipalities and promotes the well-being and importance of trees in urban communities. Tree City USA status is earned by meeting four core standards:
maintaining a tree board or department, having a
community tree ordinance, spending at least $2 per capita on urban forestry, and celebrating Arbor Day. St. Helena also has 15 Heritage Trees, designated by the City Council based on community nominations. As such, the city has a strong tree program in place, and it is important to build upon this solid foundation. Expanding and enhancing the program will help foster a healthier, more sustainable
urban tree canopy for the future.

Existing and new street trees and understory plantings
serve many purposes, from slowing stormwater runoff
and aiding water infiltration, to creating a sense of identity for St. Helena. It is essential to select species that work with the St. Helena climate, context and community
identity, and that are maintainable. It is essential to select species that require low maintenance, infrequent trimming, and minimal water usage. In regions with a
hot climate, like St. Helena, shade-bearing trees are
particularly important for cooling the environment,
reducing urban heat island effects, and enhancing
pedestrian comfort.

Understory planting that is drought tolerant and low
maintenance
All amenities should strengthen
and complement the city’s
existing character, using
sustainable materials and
practices. It’s also important
to ensure that amenities are
accessible, with enough clear
space around them, appropriate
heights, and features that
accommodate people with
disabilities, such as easily
reachable controls, non-slip
surfaces, and seating that
supports a variety of needs.

To maximize convenience,
accessibility, and efficiency,
amenities should be co-located
whenever possible to maximize
space, and create well-integrated,
multi-functional spaces.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 7
In high-traffic areas such as Main Street and the
downtown district, street trees should not only provide environmental benefits but also contribute to the aesthetic appeal of the streetscape, creating an inviting, green, and visually pleasing urban space. The choice of trees and
understory plantings should reflect the local landscape, incorporating native species or drought-tolerant varieties that complement the surrounding vineyards and rural
charm.

Beyond Main Street, street trees and landscaping should also be prioritized in residential neighborhoods and
along key connecting corridors. In these areas, trees
can provide much-needed shade, improve walkability,
and enhance the overall sense of community. Thoughtful
placement of trees in residential zones can help create a more comfortable microclimate, reduce heat buildup,
and contribute to traffic calming by naturally narrowing sightlines and encouraging slower vehicle speeds.

Additionally, integrating greenery along bike-friendly
routes, including the Vine Trail and other popular cycling paths, can provide shade and visual interest while
reinforcing St. Helena’s identity as a scenic and bikefriendly community.

For street tree species selection, refer to the Master Tree List (Exhibit A), as recommended by the St. Helena Tree Committee. For stormwater management considerations,
refer to the Green Infrastructure Toolkit to ensure
that tree planting and other streetscape amenities
achieve both aesthetic and environmental objectives,
such as improving water infiltration and supporting
biodiversity. By integrating sustainable practices, St.

Helena can maintain its natural beauty while adapting to environmental changes and promoting a healthy, vibrant
urban environment.

Existing street trees on Main Street Chinese Pistache, listed in the City Tree Species Selection Guide for Commercial Streets
Holly Oak, listed in the City Tree Species Selection Guide for Residential Streets

8 |
Bike Facilities
As St. Helena continues to grow as a cycling community, it is critical to provide amenities that support cyclists, particularly those engaging in long-distance rides.

When the Vine Trail is fully realized (i.e. the Calistoga-St Helena section was completed in 2024 and the St HelenaYountville is currently in design), amenities will become even more essential for riders passing through the area.

The City should focus on providing shade and repair and hydration stations along long-distance routes and the
Vine Trail, ensuring cyclists have the support they need during their journey. Additionally, bike racks should be integrated along Main Street and in key residential areas, such as multifamily or mixed-use areas, to accommodate
community members making shorter, local trips.

U-racks and bike corrals can be placed within the right-ofway in wide sidewalks, curb bulb-outs, and landscape or furnishings zones to integrate with the streetscape while maintaining pedestrian flow. They should also be located near transit stops to support first/last-mile connections, and at trailheads where bike routes intersect with city streets.

Selections for bicycle facilities along Main Street should reference both the Cultivate St. Helena Plan and the
Downtown Main Street Sidewalk Project Phase 1a to
ensure consistency with established design direction and maintain a cohesive visual and functional identity.

Bike repair and hydration stations along long-distance routes Bike racks strategically placed to provide convenient parking while maintaining pedestrian flow

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 9
Seating
A range of seating options, including but not limited
to, benches, seat walls, modular seating, and tree
benches, should be considered to fit the context and site constraints of a particular street or area. The placement of these seating elements should align with the site’s
purpose, whether along the Vine Trail or in residential neighborhoods. In areas with limited space, compact or
modular seating can provide comfort without blocking
pedestrian flow. This diversity ensures St. Helena’s
streetscapes are flexible and meet the needs of all users.

Custom seating elements should be provided in areas
with high pedestrian activity, such as downtown, to
create a unique and inviting atmosphere that reflects the character of St. Helena. Business owners can contribute by partnering with the city to sponsor or maintain seating, helping to enhance the streetscape while fostering a
sense of ownership. In other locations, off-the-shelf
seating products can be used to ensure cost-effectiveness.

Given the hot climate and warm summer months,
seating should be paired with shade from trees or
shelter elements to provide comfort for users. This
combination will encourage longer stays and improve
the overall experience. To reduce the need for ongoing
maintenance, seating materials and designs should be
low-maintenance, durable, and resistant to the elements, ensuring longevity and minimizing upkeep costs. This
approach creates comfortable, practical seating that
complements the environment while being mindful of
long-term sustainability.

Diverse seating options provide flexible uses and help
activate the street
Benches are placed in residential areas to fit the more traditional site context

10 |
Transit Shelters
NVTA routes along SR29 could be improved by adding
amenities like shade, seating, and Wi-Fi to enhance
comfort and encourage greater transit use. Shelters
should include bike facilities, such as racks and repair stations, to support both cyclists and transit riders,
especially with the Vine Trail running parallel to SR29.

Providing shade for cyclists at transit shelters could
improve the overall transit connection by offering a more comfortable, welcoming space for riders transferring
between cycling and public transportation, while also
making the wait more pleasant by providing relief from
the elements. Additionally, proper lighting should be
included to ensure safety, making these spaces secure
and welcoming at all hours.

Transit shelters can provide shade and relief from the
elements, aiding cyclists in transitioning to buses or other forms of public transportation
Adequate lighting at transit shelters
enhances safety
Pedestrian Scale Lighting
Pedestrian-scale lighting should enhance visibility and safety while preserving St. Helena’s rural character. This can be achieved by strategically placing lights where they are most needed—such as at intersections, crosswalks,
and pedestrian pathways—and using low-impact, energyefficient lighting solutions.

St. Helena has regulations in place to minimize light
pollution, as outlined in the municipal code. Specifically, Section 17.24.070 requires that any new outdoor lighting installed on buildings or properties adhere to guidelines regarding shielding and lamp types. These measures
aim to reduce light pollution, preserve the natural night environment, and promote energy efficiency. Compliance
with these standards is mandatory for all new outdoor
lighting installations within the city.

To maintain a human-scale experience, pedestrian-scale
lighting should focus on residential neighborhoods, the downtown core, and along Main Street, while accent
lighting can highlight key public spaces.

Pedestrian-scale lighting should be placed where it is most needed, such as at intersections, crosswalks, and pathways

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 11
Public Art
St. Helena’s public art, including notable pieces like the “Bunny Foo Foo” statue located at the south entrance to the city, plays a key role in enhancing the city’s identity, wayfinding, and sense of place. Public art should continue to reflect the town’s unique character while potentially serving additional purpose.

Large-scale sculptures or gateways can mark key entry
points, while interactive and site-specific art, such as sculptures along the Vine Trail, can engage the community and highlight the area’s history. Building on the existing mural program in the downtown area, additional murals
along streets with large blank facades—like Dowdell
Lane—could further enhance vibrancy and activation,
telling local stories and celebrating St. Helena’s history and culture.

Public art can also encourage exploration, guiding people to different parts of the city, and involving local artists can help create pieces that resonate with the community.

As new installations are considered, coordination with
the City’s Public Art and Installations process, including the mural permit application process and the public art donation and installation application process, will help ensure that artworks align with city policies, maintain aesthetic consistency, and reflect community values while supporting a cohesive approach to integrating art into
public spaces.

Mural on the facade of the Wydown Hotel located on St.

Helena’s Main Street
Peter Hassen’s “Cycles 3: Extinction” sculpture on Main Street in Napa, CA

12 |
Signage + Wayfinding
Signage and wayfinding throughout St. Helena should
focus on creating clear, welcoming gateways and arrival points for both vehicular and bike/pedestrian traffic.

Currently, there is a lack of clear arrival points and a cohesive branding or wayfinding identity that ties together the city’s downtown area, surrounding neighborhoods, and key destinations.

To reduce sign clutter, particularly that of businesses in the downtown area, it’s important to streamline the
number and placement of signs, prioritizing clarity and functionality. Signs should be strategically positioned to enhance visibility without overwhelming the streetscape, considering factors like speed limits and traffic flow. The height and placement should accommodate all modes
of transportation, ensuring that signage is easily visible to drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Additionally, most existing signage is oriented toward vehicles rather
than pedestrians, making it necessary to supplement
or redesign signs to improve visibility and usability at a pedestrian scale.

In addition to guiding people through the downtown
area, signage should provide clear directions to key
destinations like vineyards and other attractions outside the city center. These signs should blend with St. Helena’s rural character, using materials and design elements
that complement the natural environment. A cohesive
design and color scheme will help create a unified
system that supports wayfinding while enhancing both
the user experience and the aesthetic integrity of the city, establishing a strong sense of place and clear direction for residents and visitors alike.

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 13
This section examines the suitability of streetscape
amenities for each street type defined in the St. Helena 2040 General Plan Update. The street typology provides
a framework for selecting the most effective amenities
based on factors like street function, surrounding land use, transportation priorities, and community needs.

By aligning these elements with the city’s street types, this toolkit provides strategies to improve public spaces, enhance the pedestrian and cyclist experience, and
strengthen St. Helena’s character.

Open Space/ Rural
Provides access to open space, vineyards,
agricultural areas, and rural residences.

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

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

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

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

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

Street Typology + Amenities Matrix

14 | ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 15
Street Types Amenities Overview Street Trees +
Understory Planting* Bike Facilities Seating Pedestrian-Scale Lighting Shade Structure /
Transit Shelters Public Art Signage / Wayfinding
Open Space/
Rural
Streetscape amenities should be
minimal and thoughtfully placed to
preserve scenic views and complement
the area’s agricultural character. The
focus should be on essential amenities
at trailheads and key rest areas.

Prioritize bike repair and water
refill stations at key locations
including trailheads and rest
areas.

Consider larger installations
which act as landmarks, require
less maintenance, and create
identity and character without
cluttering natural scenery.

Industrial
Collector
Streetscape amenities should
be minimal and carefully placed,
prioritizing safety, accessibility,
and visual continuity. Due to limited
foot traffic and need for street
activation, amenities should be scaled
appropriately and kept simple.

Residential Placement and frequency of
streetscape amenities should prioritize
pedestrian and bicyclists needs,
incorporating features like street trees,
seating, bike racks, and lighting in a
way that improves safety and fosters
community interaction while preserving
a neighborhood scale.

Incorporate canopy and accent
trees, clustering canopy/shade
trees in gathering and seating
areas.

Place space-efficient seating,
such as backless benches and
seating walls along landscaped
spaces, in curb extensions, and
wide sidewalks, allowing for
shade, where possible.

Focus on lighting key areas such
as intersections, crosswalks,
and sidewalks while preserving
privacy for homes.

Downtown/
Mixed Use
Downtown/Mixed-Use streets feature
the highest density of activity and
the broadest range of streetscape
amenities, strategically placed to
support high pedestrian volumes and
diverse uses. These amenities should
be carefully integrated to enhance
walkability, activate the street, and
foster a vibrant, welcoming public
realm.

Strategically place canopy trees
at intersections and accent trees
along the street to enhance
permeability. Position trees
to avoid blocking signage and
building entrances.

Place space-efficient bike racks
in curb extensions, at transit
stops, and along wide sidewalks,
ensuring at least 6 feet of
clearance and shade where
possible.

Provide diverse seating options,
such as benches, seating walls,
and movable chair. Strategically
place seating in high-traffic
zones (where space allows), curb
extensions, and parklets.

Ensure adequate lighting at
storefronts, transit stops, plazas,
and high-traffic pedestrian areas
to support activity at all hours.

Transit shelters should aim to
offer additional amenities such
as district branding, lighting,
wayfinding maps, and Wi-Fi
kiosks, where feasible.

Prioritize interactive, pedestrianscale art such as sculptures, murals, and artistic seating
that activate public spaces and
enhance walkability.

Prioritize pedestrian-scale
wayfinding with cohesive
branding to direct visitors to key
destinations, integrate historical
and interpretive signagethat
enhances St. Helena’s identity.

Regional
Collector
Regional Collectors in downtown
areas and along Main Street, prioritize
pedestrian amenities to support foot
traffic and connectivity. In suburban or
rural areas, amenities should be scaled
to ensure safety, accessibility, and
visual continuity while preserving the
surrounding character.

Prioritize bike repair and water
refill stations at key locations
including trailheads, rest areas,
and transit stops/shelters.

Transit shelters should aim to
offer additional amenities such as
city or district branding, lighting,
wayfinding maps, and Wi-Fi
kiosks, where feasible.

Use monument-style pieces at
key gateways and corridors to
signal arrival into St. Helena,
ensuring visibility for pedestrians,
cyclists, and drivers.

Install vehicular and bicycleoriented wayfinding signs to guide travelers to key destinations—
such as downtown, regional
trails, and wineries—while using
gateway signage to mark St.

Helena’s entrances.

Street Typology + Amenities Matrix
*While street trees and understory plantings enhance all street types, prioritizing new tree planting programs in residential and downtown/mixed-use streets can maximize both aesthetic and environmental benefits.

The matrix below outlines St. Helena’s street types and key streetscape amenities, assessing their suitability for each type. Additional considerations are provided for amenities best suited to specific street types.

Least Suitable Suitability Depends On Site Context Most Suitable

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

It should be noted that the City of St.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impervious Connection to Vegetated Areas, Napa County Impervious Connection to Vegetated Areas, Seattle, WA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interceptor Trees, Mitchell Drive, St. Helena, CA Interceptor Trees, Berkeley, CA

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

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

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

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

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

Pervious parking lane, Oakland, CA
Pervious crosswalk, Seattle, WA

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

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

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

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

ST. HELENA STREETS MASTERPLAN | 23
BASMAA Green Infrastructure Bioretention Section Detail BASMAA Green Infrastructure Bioretention Bulbout Detail

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biofiltration System, Vancouver, BC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of subsurface infiltration systems include
infiltration trenches or galleries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Street Typology + Green Infrastructure Matrix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Least Suitable Suitability Depends on Site Context Most Suitable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St Helena Streets Master Plan
Streetscape Toolkits

St Helena Streets Master Plan
Appendix B
Community Engagement
Summary Memo

St. Helena Streets Master Plan
Public Engagement Summary
March 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

PHASE 1 – EXISTING CONDITIONS + PROPOSED PROJECTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images from Virtual Focus Groups conducted in Phase 1.

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

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

Images from the Pop-ups in Phase 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Crossing Improvements Activity Board.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Roadway Extension and Bridge Realignment Activity Board

PHASE 2 – PRIORITY PROJECTS + DRAFT CONCEPTUAL
DESIGNS:

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

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

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

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

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

Participants noted Measure U as a potential new opportunity to fund projects through bond financing. Others recommended conducting prioritization after cost estimates were developed to ensure a more informed decisionPage 140 of 1051 making process. Additionally, it was shared that the Bike Coalition had recently completed a bike network connectivity priority assessment that may be relevant to the work of the Streets Master Plan. Among the top-priority connections identified in the assessment were Pope Street, Madrona Avenue, and Adams Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St. Helena Streets Master Plan
Public Engagement Summary
Appendix A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

02.20.2026