Woodland City Council
April 7, 2026

REGIONAL ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION

CORRIDORS
04 The Vision for the Yolo Active
Transportation Corridor Plan is to
establish a connected, low-stress
network of bicycling facilities that
safely link communities across
Yolo County. Many residents in
unincorporated areas of Yolo County
lack safe and comfortable options to
walk or bike between communities,
access essential services, or reach
regional transit. Addressing these
gaps is critical to improving safety,
advancing equity, reducing vehicle
miles traveled (VMT), and supporting
public health and climate goals.

The intercommunity corridors
will serve as the backbone of a
countywide active transportation
network. The following chapter
describes the corridor identification
and prioritization process. The
priority corridors represent near-term
implementation opportunities while
also establishing a long-term vision for
a comprehensive countywide network.

Development of
Preliminary Active
Transportation
Corridors
The development of preliminary active
transportation corridors was guided
by three overarching objectives:
» Create low-stress connections
between communities, particularly
where existing roadway conditions
discourage walking and bicycling
» Leverage existing bikeways, roads,
and other linear infrastructure to
minimize environmental impacts,
reduce costs, and improve feasibility
» Address safety and access gaps
for historically underserved and
disadvantaged communities
Initial corridor identification focused
on opportunities to co-locate new
shared-use walking and bicycling
facilities with existing linear features
that naturally connect communities.

These features included:
» Railroad corridors, particularly those
that are unused or underutilized,
which may be suitable for rails-to-
trails conversions that preserve right-
of-way for future transportation use
» Creek and waterway corridors, such
as Putah Creek and Cache Creek,
where past studies have explored
opportunities to enhance riparian
open space with trail infrastructure
while balancing environmental
considerations
» Irrigation district canals, levees,
and maintenance roads, which often
provide continuous, gently graded
alignments between communities
and may be adapted for multimodal
use through cooperative agreements
and appropriate safety and security
improvements
» County roadways, where side paths
could provide separation between
active transportation users and
vehicular traffic, improving comfort
and safety
These corridor types were evaluated
for their ability to support all
ages and abilities (AAA) facilities,
minimize conflicts with vehicles, and
provide direct, intuitive connections
between population centers.

Identification of Potential Corridor Types
76 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Regional Active Transportation Corridors | 77

Bicycle Super Highway
Bicycle “superhighways” (also called
bike highways or cycle highways) are
designed to make bicycling feel as
fast, direct, and intuitive as driving
for longer everyday trips. They are
high-quality, continuous facilities that
reduce the main barriers to biking
including stressful interactions with
motor vehicles, frequent stopping, and
gaps in the network. Unlike typical bike
lanes or paths, bicycle superhighways
emphasize full separation from traffic
(and where, feasible pedestrians), wider
cross sections that allow passing, and
designs that accommodate a wide
spectrum of bicycles and e- mobility,
thus making them well suited for
commuting and other utilitarian travel.

At the state level, California has recently
explored how to formalize this concept
through legislation. In the 2025–2026
session, Assembly Bill 954 proposed
a Caltrans pilot program to create
branded, numbered bicycle highway
networks in major metropolitan areas
and to elevate bicycle highways within
statewide planning. While the bill
was ultimately paused, it reflects the
growing recognition that low stress
bicycling networks should be treated
as serious transportation infrastructure,
planned and implemented at a scale
that supports everyday mobility
rather than only recreation.

This approach is particularly relevant
for Yolo County, where many key
bicycle trips are intercommunity,
connecting Davis, Woodland, West
Sacramento, Winters, UC Davis,
employment centers, and regional
transit. The YATC plan emphasizes
improving these longer distance
connections between communities,
especially where there is a current lack
of safe cycling options. In this context,
a bicycle superhighway is not a single
facility but a clear, continuous network
that reliably links communities and
major destinations with minimal stress.

Incorporating the bicycle superhighway
concept into Yolo County’s long
range transportation planning will
support safer all-ages-and-abilities
travel, improve access to services,
jobs and education, and provide a
realistic alternative to short- and
medium-distance car trips. Aligning
county investments with emerging
state policy and Caltrans guidance
can also strengthen Yolo County’s
competitiveness for future funding,
while advancing a network that makes
bicycling a faster, safer, and more
convenient choice for everyday travel.
78 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Regional Active Transportation Corridors | 79

Impact of
Engagement
Process for
Intercommunity
Corridors
Input from residents, stakeholders,
and partner agencies, described
in Chapter 3, ensured that the
corridor network reflects local needs,
priorities, and lived experiences.

These events provided opportunities
for community members to review
draft corridor maps, learn about
proposed improvements, and provide
direct feedback. Participants were also
asked to rank the importance of six
project selection criteria, helping to
shape the weighting and emphasis of
the corridor evaluation framework.

Overall, community members
expressed strong enthusiasm for new
active transportation facilities and
recognized the value of improved
intercommunity connections. Several
consistent themes emerged:
» Comments from participants focused
on multimodal safety including
high vehicle speeds, poor or narrow
roadway conditions, and unsafe
crossings
» Community members expressed
greater interest in improved regional
connectivity between communities
to provide access to services and key
destinations
» Across all locations, participants
emphasized the importance of
serving people without access to a
vehicle, including youth, older adults,
and lower-income households
Development of
Corridor Evaluation
Criteria
Given the limited availability of near-
term design funding and the number
of corridors identified, a transparent
and data-driven evaluation framework
was developed to prioritize corridors
for implementation. The framework
was designed to reflect community
values and align with county,
state, and federal policy goals.

Nine evaluation criteria were developed
and refined in collaboration with
the project’s Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC), which included
representatives from Yolo County,
Yolo Transportation District, Caltrans
and other partner agencies. Each
criterion was paired with an available
or easily developed dataset to support
consistent scoring across corridors.

The criteria addressed the
following themes:
» Safety, prioritizing corridors adjacent
to high-speed roadways or locations
with documented pedestrian and
bicyclist collisions
» Connectivity, prioritizing corridors
that link smaller or lower-density
communities to incorporated cities
and regional destinations that
improve access to schools, grocery
stores, social services, transit, and
employment
» Equity, prioritizing corridors for
disadvantaged communities or
isolated affordable housing areas
Table 6: List of Factors for YATC Intercommunity Connections Prioritization Input Factor Source/
GIS Format
Range of
Factor
Variable
Score Notes
Parallels a high-speed facility
(posted speed limit)
County GIS/
Staff
45 MPH+ 100
30 MPH -
35 MPH 50
0-25 MPH 0
Bicycle/Pedestrian involved
Fatal or serious injury collisions
within corridor area (2018 –
2022)
UC Berkeley
SafeTREC
TIMS
2+ Collisions 100
1 Collision 50
0 0
Schools, Libraries, Parks –
within a community at each
end of the corridor
CA Dept. of
Education
6+ Locations 100 Highest scores
for connections
between high factor
and low factor values
1 - 5 50
0 0
Recreation Area, Open Space
Area, Trailhead Staff
Yes 50
No 0
Other destinations
(community centers, grocery
stores, social services, medical
center) – within a community
at each end of the corridor
Google and
Staff
6+ Locations 100 Highest scores
for connections
between high factor
and low factor values
1 - 5 50
0 0
Population – persons living
within catchment area of a
corridor
Census
10,000+ 100
2,501 - 9,999 50
0 - 2,500 0
Transit Service – Fixed Route,
Express Routes, or BeeLine
service
YTD
One End 100
None 0
Serves Disadvantaged
Community Area Caltrans EQI
Yes 50
No 0
Connects to underserved
housing outside of a Census
Designated Place
Staff
Yes 100
No 0
80 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Regional Active Transportation Corridors | 81

The draft evaluation criteria were
applied to the preliminary corridor
segments to produce a quantitative
prioritization. Eligible corridor
segments received scores ranging from
0 to 700. Results were mapped and
color-coded from blue (highest priority)
to green (lowest priority) to clearly
communicate relative importance.

Figure 33 illustrates the prioritized
corridor segments across Yolo County.

Corridors that scored highest
generally serve as critical links
between unincorporated communities
and incorporated cities, where
access to services, employment,
and transit is concentrated. These
corridors often parallel high-speed
roadways or represent the only
feasible non-motorized connection
between communities.

As higher-priority corridors are
implemented over time, mid-
and lower-priority corridors are
expected to increase in importance,
becoming the next generation
of critical connections within the
expanding countywide network.

The corridor segments
are listed in Table 7.

Figure 33: Prioritized Corridor Segments
82 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Regional Active Transportation Corridors | 83

Table 7: List of Prioritized Corridor Segments
ID # Corridor Description Origin Destination Priority Score Length (miles) Cost 43 Sacramento River Deep
Water Ship Channel
Following Levee Road/Channel Dr alongside the western side of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel
Unincorporated
County West Sacramento 700 13.6 $27,200,000
14 County Rd 22
County Road 94B, beginning at the southern side of Cache Creek, going south and turning onto County Road 22, ending at County Road 98 (Woodland city boundary)
Monument Hills Woodland 700 4.4 $8,800,000
41 Yolo Causeway Bike
Path
Yolo Causeway Bike Path along the northern side of the I-80. From Road 32A to W Capital Ave West Sacramento Unincorporated County 700 4.0 $8,000,000
40 County Rd 32A County Road 32A from Mace Blvd to the I-80 on-ramp Unincorporated County Davis 650 2.9 $5,800,000
19 County Rd 18/County
Rd 99
County Road 18 from County Road 99W to County Road 99, turning south onto County Road 99 and ending at West Kentucky Avenue Yolo Woodland 600 2.9 $5,800,000 13 Cache Creek Starting from County Road 89, on the northern side of Cache Creek following the creek eastward to County Road 94B Monument Hills Madison 550 5.6 $11,200,000 23 County Rd 124 County Road 118 to 124 to 126 between East Yolo Levee Road and Old River Road West Sacramento Unincorporated
County 550 8.1 $16,200,000
38 County Rd 36/Mace
Blvd
Mace Boulevard, starting at South El Macero Drive and turning east onto County Rd 36, ending at County Road 105 Davis Migrant Center Davis 550 4.8 $9,600,000 21 State Route 113 State Route 113 between County Road 102 and Churchill Downs Avenue Knights Landing Woodland 550 9.6 $19,200,000
10 State Route 16 State Route 16 between County Road 87 (Yolo Avenue) and County Road 89 Esparto Madison 550 2.7 $5,400,000
12 State Route 16 State Route 16 between County Road 89 and County Road 22, just east of County Road 95 outside of Monument Hills Madison Monument Hills 550 6.5 $13,000,000 42 Yolo Bypass
Starting in West Sacramento, where the railroad tracks intersect with Channel Drive. Following Channel Dr going south then moving westward through the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area. Ends where it intersects with Levee Road.

Unincorporated
County West Sacramento 550 4.6 $9,200,000
11 County Rd 89/Railroad
Ave
County Road 89 between State Route 16 and State Road 128/Grant Avenue Madison Winters
500 12.1 $24,200,000
45 Clarksburg Branch Line
Trail
Starting at West Sacramento's southern city boundary, along the train tracks, then turning east onto Pumphouse Road, south onto South River Road, west onto Willow Point Road, and finally south onto Willow Avenue, ending at a point just north of the former beet sugar refinery
Clarksburg West Sacramento 500 10 $20,000,000
37 County Rd 101 (Harry
Lorenzo Ave)
County Road 101 (Harry Lorenzo Ave), starting at County Road 25A (Woodland city boundary), turning east onto County Road 27, ending at County Road 102
Davis Woodland 500 7. 3 $14,600,000
33 County Rd 99 County Road 99 between Farmers Central Ditch and W Covell Blvd Woodland Davis 500 6.5 $13,000,000 36 County Rd 102 County Road 102 between Bronze Star Road and East Covell Boulevard Davis Woodland 500 7. 3 $14,600,000
20 County Rd 102 County Road 102 between State Route 113 and Interstate 5 Woodland Knights Landing 500 8.2 $16,400,000 84 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Regional Active Transportation Corridors | 85

ID # Corridor Description Origin Destination Priority Score Length (miles) Cost 26 Putah Creek Northern side of the South Fork Putah Creek, starting from Interstate 505 and going east, ending at Old Davis Road Davis Winters 500 13.8 $27,600,000 27 Russell Blvd Russell Blvd between Timber Crest Road in Winters and Arthur Road Street in Davis Winters Davis 500 11 $22,000,000
34 County Rd 101A/East St Along the California Northern Railroad tracks, between Farmers Central Ditch and ending at the Willow Slough Davis Woodland 500 6.3 $12,600,000 22 County Road 22/Old
River Rd
Old River Road between Interstate 5 Northbound ramps and Tule Jake Road West Sacramento Woodland 500 14 $28,000,000
31 Old Davis Rd* Old Davis Rd between Interstate 80 and Tremont Rd Unincorporated County Davis 500 2.4 $4,800,000
28 Russell Blvd/County Rd
31 Starting near Winters, Russell Blvd eastward up County Road 93A to County Rd 31 moving eastward to County Road 99 (Davis city boundary)
Winters Davis 500 10.2 $20,400,000
29 County Rd 98/Pedrick
Rd* County Rd 98 between Russell Blvd and Vaughn Rd Davis Unincorporated County 450 8 $16,000,000
7 Winters Canal
Along the east side of Winters Canal, starting from County Road 85, continuously heading south, turning east towards and ending at County Road 89
Winters Capay 450 14.7 $29,400,000
25 State Road 128 State Road 128 between Pleasants Valley Road and Railroad Ave Unincorporated County Winters 450 4.3 $8,600,000
8 State Route 16/
Woodland Ave State Route 16 between County Road 85 and County Road 87 Esparto Capay 400 2.2 $4,400,000 44 Elk Slough to Morgans
Landing
Starting at the intersection of Netherland Ave, Park Ave, and N School St in Clarksburg. Heading west along Netherlands all the way to the intersection of S Netherlands Rd and Waukeena Rd (Road 145). Going south along Waukeena Road to then go east on Courtland Road across Elk Slough ending at the intersection of Courtland Road and S River Road.

Clarksburg Unincorporated
County 400 8.9 $17,800,000
9 Cache Creek Starting from County Road 87, on the northern side of Cache Creek following the creek eastward to County Road 89 Madison Capay 400 4.8 $9,600,000 6 Cache Creek Following along the eastern side of Cache Creek from Brooks to Capay Capay Brooks 350

6.5 $13,000,000
24 Putah Creek* Putah Creek Rd, between State Road 128 and Railroad Avenue Unincorporated County Winters 350 4.4 $8,800,000
5 State Route 16 State Route 16 from Brooks to Capay Capay Brooks 350 6.6 $13,200,000 39 South Fork Putah
Creek/Willow Slough
Levee Road beginning at Interstate 80, going south and turning left along the northern side of South Fork Putah Creek, ending at Mace Boulevard
Unincorporated
County
Unincorporated
County 300 6.7 $13,400,000
3 State Route 16 State Route 16 from Brooks to Guinda Brooks Guinda 300 6.9 $13,800,000 1 State Route 16 State Route 16 from Guinda to Rumsey Guinda Rumsey 300 5.2 $10,400,000 4 Cache Creek Starting near County Road 57, following along the eastern side of Cache Creek near from Guinda to Brooks Brooks Guinda 300 7.8 $15,600,000 16 County Rd 99W County Road 99W from County Road 4 to County Road 1 Dunnigan Hershey 250 2.3 $4,600,000 86 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Regional Active Transportation Corridors | 87

ID # Corridor Description Origin Destination Priority Score Length (miles) Cost 17 County Rd 99W County Road 99W from County Road 8 to County Road 6 Dunnigan Dunnigan 250 1.6 $3,200,000 2 Cache Creek Starting near County Road 41, following along the eastern side of Cache Creek from Rumsey to Guinda Guinda Rumsey 250 7.1 $14,200,000 18 County Rd 99W County Road 99W along I-5 from County Road 18 to County Road 6 Dunnigan Yolo 250 12.7 $25,400,000 15 Cache Creek
Starting from County Road 94B, on the northern side of Cache Creek following the creek eastward past County Road Road 99W into Yolo
Monument Hills Yolo 250 5.2 $10,400,000
30 Tremont Rd* Tremont Road from Mace Boulevard to Interstate 80 Unincorporated County
Unincorporated
County 200 6.1 $12,200,000
32 South Fork Putah Creek Northern side of the South Fork Putah Creek, between Old Davis Road and Mace Boulevard
Unincorporated
County
Unincorporated
County 150 3.3 $6,600,000
35 County Rd 29
Willow Slough, starting north of County Road 29, then going along County Road 29, moving east then south to go along Levee Road.

Ending at the corner of Levee Road and Road 32A
Unincorporated
County
Unincorporated
County 100 8.2 $16,400,000
*At least a portion of these projects lie within Solano County and is outside the jurisdiction of Yolo County. While included as recommendations based on community and stakeholder input, implementation would require voluntary inter‑county coordination and partnership.
88 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Regional Active Transportation Corridors | 89

Complete Streets are designed
to prioritize safety, comfort,
and access to destinations for
users of all ages and abilities,
and for all modes of travel,
including active transportation
modes. Complete Streets
are unique to a community’s
context and the needs of the
surrounding area. A complete
street design often balances
benefits for those walking, biking,
and taking transit, including
improvements such as safety
enhancements at crosswalks,
better bus stop waiting areas,
and enhanced bicycle facilities.

The best practices discussed in
this Toolbox will contribute to the
development of Complete Streets
in unincorporated Yolo County.

WHAT ARE COMPLETE STREETS?
ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION

TOOLKIT
05 This chapter discusses best
practices for bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure projects and non-
infrastructure programs. It is focused
on recommendations useful for the
shared contextual characteristics
of communities around the region.

Because no general design guide can
cover the unique characteristics of
every location, this guidance should
be used in conjunction with study of
each individual location, engineering
judgment, and other necessary
considerations as appropriate for
each individual application.

New projects and programs are
most likely to be successful when
implemented in partnership with
the community. Strategies for
public engagement include:
» Talking to the community to
understand their desires and priorities
» Implementing new types of facilities
incrementally to generate feedback
and support
» Publicizing projects and educating
the public on the changes to be
implemented and their benefits
This toolbox draws on research and
emphasizes engineering judgment,
design flexibility, documentation,
and experimentation.

Resources
This chapter is based on a review
of existing studies, guidelines, and
manuals related to pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure and strategies.

The following documents are
general resources for these topics:
» NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide, 2nd
Edition
» NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide
» NACTO Transit Street Design Guide
» FHWA Guide for Improving
Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled
Crossing Locations
» FHWA Small and Rural Multi-Modal
Networks Guide
» FHWA Separated Bicycle Lane
Planning and Design Guide
» FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide
(2019)
» AASHTO Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition
» Caltrans Highway Design Manual
» Caltrans Design Information Bulletin
(DIB) 94
» Caltrans Class IV Bikeway Guidance
DIB 89-02
» League of American Bicyclists
Benchmarking Bike Networks
» Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic
(CROW Manual) (2017)
» ITE Recommended Practices on
Accommodating Pedestrian and
Bicyclists at Interchanges
» Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals Essentials of Bicycle
Parking: Selecting and Installing
Bicycle Parking That Works (2015)
90 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Active Transportation Toolkit | 91

Bikeways
Several types of bikeways and
supporting facilities come together
to form a complete bicycle network.

Bikeways are classified in Chapter 1000
of the Highway Design Manual into four
primary types, arranged in order from
most separated and protected to least:
» Shared-use paths (bike paths)
» Separated bikeways (cycle tracks)
» Bike lanes (includes buffered bike
lanes)
» Bike routes (shared lanes or bike
boulevards)
Bikeway Selection
The FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide
and the League of American Bicyclists
Benchmarking Bike Networks are
good references for selecting bikeway
types based on local conditions.

Three primary goals are important
in guiding bikeway selection:
» Safety: Reducing the frequency and
severity of crashes and minimizing
conflicts between users.
» Comfort: Minimizing stress, anxiety,
and safety concerns for the target
design user. (Comfort and safety are
closely related.)
» Connectivity: Making trips direct and
convenient and offering access to all
destinations served by the roadway
network and creating seamless and
clear transitions between bikeways
and general roadways.

Figure 34 is a graphic exerpted
from from the guide that indicates
the ideal bikeway type based on
vehicle volume and speed. In this
graphic and in the following section,
bikeways are arranged in order
from the most separation and
protection from traffic to the least.

Other factors such as available right-
of-way and cost may also influence
bikeway selection, especially when
retrofitting bikeways onto existing
streets. Curb-to-curb width and
parking considerations in older
neighborhoods can present challenges
to design. As described in the
guide, other such factors include:
» Unusually high peak hour motor
vehicle volumes
» High percentages of trucks and buses
» High parking turnover or curbside
activity
» Frequent driveways or intersections
» High concentrations of vulnerable
populations such as children and
older adults
If the preferred bikeway cannot be
provided, the next best bikeway should
be considered, as it still may increase
comfort and safety for more confident
bicyclists. Alternative parallel routes
may also be considered trespassing.

Figure 34: FHWA Bikeway
Selection Guidance
Shared-Use Path
Shared-use paths are off-street facilities
reserved for non-motorized travel by
people walking, biking, and rolling.

They have little to no interaction with
motor vehicles and are often located
along landscaped corridors. These
paths support both recreational use
and commute trips, serving bicyclists,
pedestrians, dog walkers, runners,
skaters, and other non-motorized users.

Design Principles
» Use where maximum separation from
traffic is desired and right-of-way is
available.
» Best in locations with few crossings.
» For a two-way path, provide a width
of at least eight feet with a two-foot
shoulder; 10 feet with a two-foot
shoulder is preferred.
» For a one-way path, typically only
used when transitioning to an on-
street bikeway, provide a width of at
least five feet and a two-foot shoulder.
» Include street crossings with
measures such as bike and pedestrian
activated traffic signals, median
islands, and warning signs.
» At freeways, highways, and railroads,
consider grade-separated crossings.
» Include curb ramps and curb cuts
that are convenient and conform to
the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
» Ensure adequate path width, sight
distance, and drainage.
» Include wayfinding signs for easier
navigation.
» Provide shade to encourage use.
» Include scenic attributes such as
landscaping and trail placement
highlighting views.

Maintenance
» Conduct maintenance frequently
to avoid hazards such as tree root
cracking and debris.
» Refresh faded striping and repair or
replace damaged or faded signage.
» Maintain adequate vegetation
clearance.
92 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Active Transportation Toolkit | 93

Bike Lane
Bike lanes are on-street bikeways
that use striping, stencils, and
signage to denote preferential or
exclusive use by bicyclists. They
run alongside motor vehicle travel
lanes and provide adequate room
for people to ride comfortably
while alerting drivers about the
predictable movements of bicyclists.

Design Principles
» Provide a width of at least five feet. At
least three feet should be clear of any
gutter pan.
» Minimize vehicle travel and parking
lane widths to reduce vehicle speeds
and create safer roadway conditions
for all users, and to provide maximum
bike lane widths to allow bicyclists to
pass other riders safely and navigate
around parked cars and other road
hazards.
» As available roadway width for the
bike lane increases beyond five feet,
consider use of painted buffers:
» Left-side painted buffers on bike
lanes improve separation between
bicycles and vehicles. They are
especially useful in cases with
vehicle speeds that are greater
than 25 miles per hour.
» Right-side painted buffers can be
added between parallel parked
cars and the bike lane to create
separation from the door zone, the
space in which a driver may open
their car door and hit a bicyclist.
» Lane striping (six inches wide) should
be dashed through heavily trafficked
merging areas, including turn lanes
at intersection approaches. Refer to
California MUTCD Section 9C.04 for
guidance.
» May use skipped green markings in
conflict zones.
» Design drainage grates to avoid
catching bicycle tires.

Maintenance
» Conduct maintenance frequently to
prevent and remedy roadway hazards
such as potholes and debris.
» Refresh faded striping and repair or
replace damaged or faded signage.

Bike Route and
Boulevard
Bike routes are streets with signs and
sometimes pavement markings where
bicyclists travel on the shoulder or
share a lane with motor vehicles. in
shared travel lanes or on the roadway
shoulder. Bike routes are utilized on
low-speed and low-volume streets
to connect bike lanes or paths
along corridors that do not provide
enough space for dedicated lanes.

Bicycle boulevards are enhanced bike
routes that are intentionally located
on low-volume, low-speed local streets
and include other features designed
to make a low-stress, comfortable,
attractive bikeway that prioritizes
bicycle travel. These features include
shared lane markings, wayfinding
signs, and traffic calming features,
including at crossings with higher
volume arterials. Physical and non-
physical measures such as signs,
pavement markings, speed lumps,
and low or reduced vehicle speeds
are utilized to discourage through
trips by motor vehicles and create
safe, convenient bicycle access.

Design Principles
» Shoulders are preferable but not
required.
» Sharrow markings can be used to alert
drivers to presence of bikes.

Maintenance
» Conduct maintenance frequently to
prevent and remedy roadway hazards
such as potholes and debris
» Refresh faded striping and repair or
replace damaged or faded signage.

Separated
Bikeway
Dedicated visible space for bicyclists
to wait in front of vehicle traffic at
a signalized intersection. Provide
bicyclists priority crossing major streets.

May span the entire approach, allowing
bicyclists safe waiting zones for left
turns, or may be placed only in front of
the right-turn lane. Colored pavement,
typically green, should be used to
encourage compliance by motorists.

Design Principles
» Preferred bike lane width is seven feet
to allow for passing and maintenance.

Also consider minimum width
achievable by street sweeper.
» Minimum buffer width should be 18
inches, or three feet with parked cars.
» Best placed in areas with fewer
driveways to minimize conflicts with
motor vehicles.
» Require wider right-of-way than bike
lanes.
» Require careful design of appropriate
intersection treatments.
» May use skipped green markings in
conflict zones.
» Design drainage grates to avoid
catching bicycle tires.

Maintenance
» Conduct maintenance frequently
to avoid roadway hazards such as
potholes and debris. Smaller street
cleaning equipment may be required
to fit between the curb and barrier.
» Maintain posts, bollards, or other
physical buffer.
» Refresh faded striping and repair or
replace damaged or faded signage.
94 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Active Transportation Toolkit | 95

Bicycle Parking
Several types of bikeways and
supporting Bicycle parking encourages
ridership by supporting the final stage
of a bicycle trip. Locations with high
ridership are excellent candidates
for bicycle parking, including civic,
residential, commercial, and office
spaces. At these locations, both
short-term and long-term parking
should be accommodated.

New bicycle parking should meet the
standards discussed above. Both short-
and long-term bicycle parking should
be supplied where appropriate, such
as at schools, parks, grocery stores,
and other key destinations. Business
owners should be encouraged to
work with relevant local agencies to
provide bicycle parking in visible areas
in commercial districts to entice riders
to stop and frequent local businesses.

Short-Term
Bicycle Parking
Short-term bicycle parking is
temporary bicycle parking intended
for visitors. Bicycle racks are a common
form of short-term parking. Bicycle
racks in front of stores and other
destinations allow patrons to park their
bike for short periods. Bike parking
should be located in well-lit areas to
discourage theft. Installing permanent
bicycle racks near main entrances
also helps bicyclists feel welcome
and encourages them to ride their
bicycle again on a return trip. Bicycle
racks that allow at least two points
of contact, such as the wheel and
frame, provide the most protection
against theft and accidental damage.

Long-Term
Bicycle Parking
Long-term bicycle parking is intended
for employees, students, commuters,
and residents to protect bicycles for
extended periods. Long-term facilities
are more secure than short-term
bicycle parking and should fully protect
bicycles from theft and weather.

Long-term bicycle parking
includes bike lockers, bike
cages, and bike rooms:
» Bike lockers are outdoor enclosures
that accommodate one or two
bicycles and are usually leased on a
monthly basis or paid short-term use.
» Bike cages are fully enclosed, roofed
shelters that house racks of bicycle
parking, typically found at schools.
» Bicycle rooms are found inside office
or residential buildings, and provide
secure indoor parking. Bicycle rooms
may feature amenities such as
bike pumps and quick-fix tools for
employees and residents.

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks
and crosswalks, which, with some
exceptions, are primarily for pedestrian
use. Some types of facilities are
shared by both pedestrians and
bicyclists. Each of these facilities are
described earlier in this toolkit:
» Shared-use path
» Bike route with multi-use shoulder
Sidewalks
Paved areas immediately adjacent
to the vehicular right-of-way for
the exclusive use of pedestrians.

They may be used by people riding
bicycles unless prohibited.

Design Principles
» Usable width should generally be five
feet or more
» Crossings of driveways should be at
grade
» Street trees and landscaping provide
shade and comfort
» Slower vehicle speeds on the adjacent
roadway increase comfort
» Pedestrian-scale lighting can increase
safety and security for pedestrian
walking outside of daylight hours
Marked
Crosswalks
Feature striping and other
enhancements to delineate a street
crossing for pedestrians. There are
two types of marked crosswalks:
» Controlled: With vehicle stop signs or
traffic signals.
» Uncontrolled: Without stop signs
or traffic signals. Under California
law, drivers are legally required to
yield to pedestrians at uncontrolled
crosswalks.

Design Principles
» Although not yet incorporated into
the California MUTCD, the FHWA
MUTCD provides guidance on when
to mark a crosswalk.
» All six designs from the California
MUTCD, except for the Standard
markings, are considered to be high
visibility, more easily discerned by
drivers.
» Lines in a Continental, Double
Continental, or Bar Pair marking
should be spaced to avoid the wheel
path of vehicles and thus reduce
striping maintenance.
» Use stop lines and yield lines in
conjunction with signs at crosswalks,
as described in the California
MUTCD, to improve driver yielding to
pedestrians.

Figure 35: Marked Crosswalk
96 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Active Transportation Toolkit | 97

Complementary Pedestrian Treatments
The following treatments should be
used with sidewalks and crosswalks
as warranted. The FHWA Guide for
Improving Pedestrian Safety and
Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
contains detailed guidance for
selecting appropriate treatments,
visualized as the matrix shown in
Figure 36. Key inputs are roadway
configuration (including number
of lanes and presence of a median),
vehicle annual average daily traffic 16
Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations Select Countermeasure(s)
Table 1 provides initial countermeasure
options for various roadway conditions. Each
matrix cell indicates possibilities that may
be appropriate for designated pedestrian
crossings. Not all of the countermeasures
listed in the matrix cell should necessarily be
installed at a crossing.

For multi-lane roadway crossings with
vehicle AADTs exceeding 10,000, a marked
crosswalk alone is typically insufficient
(Zegeer, 2005). Under such conditions, more
substantial crossing improvements (such as
the refuge island, PHB, and RRFB) are also
needed to prevent an increase in pedestrian
crash potential.

Roadway Configuration
Posted Speed Limit and AADT
Vehicle AADT <9,000 Vehicle AADT 9,000–15,000 Vehicle AADT >15,000 ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph 2 lanes
(1 lane in each direction)
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes with raised median
(1 lane in each direction)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes w/o raised median
(1 lane in each direction with a
two-way left-turn lane)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 9 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 9 9
4+ lanes with raised median
(2 or more lanes in each direction)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
4+ lanes w/o raised median
(2 or more lanes in each direction)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
Given the set of conditions in a cell,
# Signifies that the countermeasure is a candidate
treatment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location.

Signifies that the countermeasure should always be
considered, but not mandated or required, based upon
engineering judgment at a marked uncontrolled
crossing location.

Signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements should always occur in conjunction with other identified
countermeasures.*
The absence of a number signifies that the countermeasure is generally not an appropriate treatment, but exceptions may be considered following engineering judgment.
1 High-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restrictions on crosswalk approach, adequate nighttime lighting levels, and crossing warning signs
2 Raised crosswalk
3 Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians sign and yield (stop) line
4 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign
5 Curb extension
6 Pedestrian refuge island
7 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB)**
8 Road Diet
9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)**
Table 1. Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway feature. *Refer to Chapter 4, 'Using Table 1 and Table 2 to Select Countermeasures,' for more information about using multiple countermeasures. **It should be noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both installed at the same crossing location.

This table was developed using information from: Zegeer, C.V., J.R. Stewart, H.H. Huang, P.A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell. (2005). Safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: Final report and recommended guidelines. FHWA, No. FHWA-HRT-04-100, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. (revised 2012). Chapter 4F, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. FHWA, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/; FHWA. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/; Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon, E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. (2017). NCHRP Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; Thomas, Thirsk, and Zegeer. (2016). NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; and personal interviews with selected pedestrian safety practitioners.

Source: FHWA
(AADT), and posted speed limit.

Refer to the Guide for additional
recommendations on treatment
application. The Guide also
provides information on pedestrian
collision analysis and selection of
countermeasures base on collision
analysis. Use that information
when applying countermeasures
in response to collision history
or systemic safety analysis.

Figure 36: FHWA Matrix for Improving Pedestrian
Safety and Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
98 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Active Transportation Toolkit | 99

Curb Extensions
Curb extensions, also known as
bulb-outs, decrease the pedestrian
crossing distance at intersections and
improve the visibility of pedestrians
waiting to cross the street.

Benefits
Reduces time pedestrians
are exposed to vehicles.

Challenges
Potential for higher cost due to
drainage accommodations.

Median Refuge
Islands
Allow pedestrians to cross one
direction of traffic then wait in
the center of the street to cross
the other direction of traffic.

Design Principles
» Use on roadways with few gaps in
traffic.
» Consider in locations with existing
medians.
» If no medians are existing, consider
creating space by eliminating on-
street parking or narrowing vehicle
travel lanes.
» Split pedestrian crossover
refuge islands, generally used at
uncontrolled mid-block locations,
encourage pedestrians to look
towards the oncoming direction
of traffic before completing the
crossing.

Benefits
Reduce time pedestrians are
exposed to vehicles and narrows
roadway, reducing speeds.

Challenges
May restrict or inhibit left
turning vehicles.

Figure 37: Curb Extensions Figure 38: Median Refuge Island Warning Signage
Improves visibility of crosswalks and
increase the likelihood that a driver
will yield or stop to pedestrians.

Additional signage in school zones
helps alert drivers that children, who
are known to make unpredictable
movements, may be present.

Design Principles
» In-street signs are ideal for streets
with low vehicle speeds and two
lanes. They can be permanently
installed or movable for peak hours
such as pick-up/drop-off times at
schools.
» Overhead signs are more impactful
at busier, wider streets. These are
typically installed at mid-block
crossings or intersections.

Raised Crosswalk
Pedestrian crossings raised to
sidewalk level or just below. Act
as traffic calming device.

Design principles
» Should not be constructed on streets
with sharp curves or steep grades.
» Tactile treatments are needed at the
sidewalk/street boundary so that
visually impaired pedestrians can
identify the edge of the street.

Benefits
Effective in reducing vehicle
speed and allows pedestrian to
cross at a nearly constant grade
without requiring curb ramps.

Challenges
May be have higher costs due
to drainage infrastructure.

Figure 39: Raised Crosswalk
100 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Active Transportation Toolkit | 101

Figure 40: Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacon Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
(RRFBs) are a type of pedestrian
activated warning beacon that
improve driver-yielding rates. They
consist of rapid-flash system LED
beacons that are similar in operation to
emergency flashers on police vehicles.

RRFBs have generally shown the
greatest effectiveness among
the types of pedestrian activated
warning beacons. Some jurisdictions
also use signs with flashing LEDs
within the border of the sign itself.

However, these treatments have
not been demonstrated to have
efficacy comparable to RRFBs.

Benefits
Increases driver yielding and can lead
to reduction in pedestrian crashes.

Challenges
Requires pedestrian activation
and does not stop traffic, but
require vehicles to yield.

Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs),
also known as High-intensity Activated
crossWalKs or HAWK signals, require
vehicles to stop at a red light to
allow pedestrians to cross. PHBs are
idelal for roadways have have higher
speeds and volumes than warranted
for an RRFB, but do not require a full
pedestrian signal. They should only
be installed in locations that include
a marked crosswalk. The MUTCD
provides details on use of PHBs.

PHBs operate with the
following phases:

1. Flashing Yellow – Upon actuation,
beacon flashes yellow

2. Solid Yellow – Alerts drivers
pedestrians will soon cross

3. Solid Red – Drivers must stop and
remain stopped

4. Flashing Red – Drivers stop and
proceed when clear, as they would
with a stop sign

5. No Indication – Signal is dark when
not actuated
Benefits
Increases driver yielding and can lead
to reduction in pedestrian crashes.

Challenges
Similar cost to a pedestrian signal.

Figure 41: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
102 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Active Transportation Toolkit | 103

Other Treatments &
Support Facilities
Some improvements can serve
both bicyclists and pedestrians
and can be used in combination
with other treatments.

Traffic Calming
Traffic calming devices include a wide
range of design treatments capable
reducing vehicle speeds and thus
improving the safety and comfort of
the transportation network for all users.

Reducing vehicle speeds makes travel
safer for both bicycles and pedestrians.

Vertical deflection devices cause drivers
to experience a physical response that
is aggravated when traveling at high
speeds. Many existing streets can be
retrofitted with vertical measures.

Horizontal deflection devices
are used to deflect vehicles from
traveling at high speeds. Horizontal
deflection measures require
drivers to navigate laterally and
consequentially reduce speed.

Narrowing traffic calming devices are
a sub-category of horizontal deflection
traffic calming devices. Wider roads
are associated with greater crash rates
and higher impact speeds. Narrowing
roadways often leads to decreased
vehicle speeds and improves safety.

Restriping narrower travel lanes
for vehicle traffic via centerline and
edgeline striping can reduce motor
vehicle speed. Cross-hatch pavement
marking applied to outer edge of a
roadway to create a shoulder and
reduce lane widths if the space is not
used for a bike lane or parking. In
many locations, interior traffic lanes
can be narrowed to 10 feet or less to
encourage lower speeds. Narrow lanes
can make room in the roadway right
of way for painted medians, center
turn lanes, bicycle lanes, or parking.

Road Diets
Road diets reduce the number of
vehicle travel lanes. This is typically
done by converting a four lane road
into a three lane road with a two-way-
left-turn lane and bike lanes. The space
created by removing lanes can also be
used for painted medians or parking.

Design Principles
Use on roadways with current
and expected future ADT
approximately 20,000 or less.

Benefits
Helps to reduce speeds, reduces
conflicts at crossings, can increase the
separation of pedestrians from traffic.

Challenges
Can be expensive.

Wayfinding
Wayfinding refers to the network
of informational signage posted to
guide pedestrians or bicyclists to their
destination. Good wayfinding signage
presents destination, direction, and
distance information in a manner
that is easy to read and interpret.

Bicycle specific wayfinding must
be tailored so that bicyclists can see
the information from a comfortable
distance. Signs posted at trail junctions
and intersections of trails with arterials
are particularly helpful. Guidance on
sign design and installation is available
in Chapter 9B of the California MUTCD
and the National Association of City
Transportation Officials (NACTO)
design guidelines. Wayfinding
signage can also be enhanced with
average walk times and bike times
to destinations and local branding.

Lighting
Sufficient lighting on bicycle and
pedestrian facilities reduces the risk of
collisions that occur due to decreased
visibility. Pedestrian walkways should
have lighting that allows people to
identify faces from a distance of about
30 feet. Lighting should be consistent
to reduce deep shadows and avoid
excessive glare. It is necessary to
maintain conventional light fixtures
regularly, keeping lamp bowls clean
and promptly replacing bulbs that
have burnt out. Newer light emitting
diode (LED) fixtures, which have
much longer bulb life, have greatly
decreased maintenance requirements.

Figure 42: Street lighting featuring
dedicated illumination for both
the roadway and the sidewalk
104 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Active Transportation Toolkit | 105

Improving conditions for walking,
biking, and rolling requires more than
building sidewalks and bikeways.

Non-infrastructure countermeasures
and programs play a role in shaping
how people experience and use these
facilities by influencing behavior, safety,
and public awareness. Education
campaigns, enforcement strategies,
and incentive/encouragement
programs foster a culture that values
active modes of travel. When paired
with physical investments, these
non-infrastructure countermeasures
help ensure that walking, biking,
and rolling are not only possible, but
appealing choices for people of all
ages and abilities. YoloTD can look
to existing programs and efforts
happening elsewhere that educate
and promote active transportation
and implement them in collaboration
with local organizations, such as school
districts, bike advocacy groups, and
other community-based organizations.

Partnerships with entities such as
these can help ensure broader reach
and program success. The following
programs are recommended
for the County in addition to
infrastructure improvements.

Education and
Encouragement
Education and encouragement can
occur through local groups and regular
events and campaigns. Local schools
and bicycle advocacy groups can
encourage biking and walking through
bike rodeos, fun runs, walkathons,
and bike/walk/roll to school events.

Bike rodeos are just one example of
a fun way to teach kids biking and
safety skills in a safe environment.

They are typically put on by bicycle
advocacy groups, schools, or local
agencies. At these events, participants
learn basic bike handling and traffic
safety and practice riding on courses
to gain the skills necessary to ride
a bike confidently and safely. The
Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
(SABA) have previously hosted “Bike
Clubs,” bike rodeos for students within
West Sacramento. As seen in the city
of Woodland, police departments
also sometimes host bike training
sessions at local elementary schools.
50 Corridor TMA, a transportation
management association serving the
Sacramento Region, has put on events
to teach first-time adult riders how to
ride bikes. Often, bike trainings also
cover other topics like proper bike
riding behavior and helmet fitting.

Group activities dedicated to walking
and biking can encourage more
walking and biking among children
and adults alike. Walking school
buses and biking school buses (also
known as bike trains) are practices
that can be implemented either
formally or informally, where school
staff, parents, or other trained adults
lead a group of students to school
together either by walking or biking.

Bike to work events are also useful
to encourage adult bicycling.

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs
are an effective way to improve safety
and access for children walking or
biking to school, including students
with disabilities, while encouraging
more children to choose active
Non-Infrastructure Best Practices
travel. Developing an SRTS program
generally involves engaging local
stakeholders, identifying challenges
and solutions, and preparing a
comprehensive plan that incorporates
encouragement, enforcement,
education, and engineering
strategies. These strategies should
be accompanied by a timeline with
prioritization and a funding approach.
1 Enforcement
Certain enforcement strategies can
help foster a roadway environment
that is more mindful of vulnerable
roadway users like bicyclists,
pedestrians, and students. Speeding
and failure to yield to schoolchildren
was a top concern heard by community
members throughout the planning
process. Local law enforcement can
partner with schools to strengthen
enforcement of proper motor vehicle
behaviors around pedestrians and
bicyclists at schools, including
monitoring driver compliance
with speed limits and yielding at
crosswalks. Community members
have also raised concerns about
personal safety along trails, especially
at more isolated locations. Periodic
enforcement actions along trails
can help alleviate these concerns.

Maintenance
Establishing formal policies or
dedicated funding sources for trail
maintenance ensures that facilities
are regularly maintained and remain
safe and accessible for users. Adequate
staff capacity and stable funding are
1 Information on Safe Routes To School is located at http:// guide.saferoutesinfo.org/steps/index.cfm
critical to coordinating maintenance
activities, managing volunteers and
contracts, and relaying progress to
decision-makers and the public. A well-
maintained trail creates a positive user
experience that encourages repeat and
long-term use. The following programs
and strategies are intended to support
regular, ongoing trail maintenance. As
mentioned in Chapter 7, the Regional
Trails Program allocates funds annually
to develop and maintain trails.

Adopt-a-Trail and similar volunteer
programs can support routine upkeep
activities such as litter removal,
vegetation management, and minor
surface repairs, provided that they are
supported by clear protocols, safety
training, and ongoing coordination
with agency staff. Ideally, these
maintenance programs combine
agency-led efforts with structured
community participation. To improve
responsiveness and accountability,
agencies should implement an easy-
to-use reporting system—such as
an online form, mobile application,
or hotline—that allows trail users to
report hazards and maintenance
needs. Reports should be logged,
tracked, and prioritized based on
severity and usage, with defined
timelines for response and resolution.

Proactive maintenance practices,
including routine inspections and
scheduled maintenance cycles, should
be used to identify issues before they
escalate into safety hazards or costly
repairs. Agencies should maintain
and periodically update maintenance
standards and design guidelines to
align with best practices and ensure
consistency across the trail network.
106 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Active Transportation Toolkit | 107

Speed
Management
Raising awareness of speeding is
important at a neighborhood level and
can be achieved through local events
and education. Residents are less likely
to speed if they know their neighbors.

Speed monitoring programs train
residents in using radar detectors
which then distribute warnings to
speeding vehicles. This type of program
helps residents understand that this
is a local and personal issue and the
importance of driving the speed limit.

Pairing education with enforcement
by distributing warnings and
educational materials before giving
tickets provides drivers with a deeper
understanding of the law and its value.

Speed feedback signs and radar trailers
that display real-time signs and flash
when drivers exceed the limit. Radar
trailers are appropriate on a temporary
basis only. These treatments are useful
on corridors with prevalent cases of
speeding that lack room for physical
measures or in conjunction with recent
construction of physical measures.

However, speed monitoring and
feedback signs may have only
temporary effectiveness as drivers
grow accustomed to their presence.

Police
Participation
in Education
Safety, as discussed in the Education
section, can also be applied as a
responsibility of the police department.

Officers practice this by distributing
literature on safe pedestrian habits
as part of enforcement efforts and
meetings and events with students
and the public. This can include
education on proper helmet use, light
giveaways, and targeting infractions.

Bicycle Diversion
Programs
Bicycle diversion programs provide
bicyclists who are cited for certain
infractions the option to attend a
bicycle safety class rather than paying
a ticket. This educational component
is associated with a greater degree
of lasting behavior change.

Bike Theft
The fear and reality of bike theft can
be a barrier to bicycling for all users.

Recommendations for reducing
bike theft include improving locking
practices through education, providing
adequate bicycle parking facilities,
providing bicycle registration, providing
recovery resources and programs, and
offender detection such as bait bikes.

Figure 43: Speed Feedback Sign
Electric bicycles (e-bikes) and other
electric mobility devices such as
electric scooters are a rapidly growing
new transportation alternative in
California. These devices provide
a potential option to cover longer
travel distances and steeper grades.

Bike share companies that include
electric bikes and electric scooter
rentals are common in many cities. By
improving personal mobility without
requiring use of a car, these devices
may also be an appealing option
to aging but active populations.

E-Bikes
California Vehicle Code (CVC)
designates three classes of
e-bikes (CVC Section 312.5):
» Class 1 – low-speed pedal-assisted
electric bicycle: Bicycle equipped with
a motor that provides assistance only
when the rider is pedaling and that
ceases to provide assistance when the
e-bike reaches 20 mph.
» Class 2 – low-speed throttle-assisted
electric bicycle: Bicycle equipped with
a throttle-actuated motor that ceases
to provide assistance when the e-bike
reaches 20 mph.
» Class 3 – speed pedal-assisted electric
bicycle: Bicycle equipped with a
motor that provides assistance only
when the rider is pedaling, and that
ceases to provide assistance when the
e-bike reaches 28 mph.

Class 1 and 2 e-bikes are generally
treated similarly to regular bicycles:
» There is no minimum age to ride.
» Helmets are required for ages 17 and
under.
» Allowed on all bikeways, unless
prohibited by the local jurisdiction
(CVC Section 21207.5).

Class 3 e-bikes have more
limitations on their use:
» Riders must be 16 years of age or
older.
» A helmet is required for all riders.
» They are allowed on bike lanes or bike
routes, but not allowed on shared-
use paths or protected bikeways (CVC
Section 21207.5).

Electric Scooters
The CVC defines an electric scooter
as a “motorized scooter”: any two-
wheeled device that has handlebars,
has a floorboard that is designed to
be stood upon when riding, and is
powered by an electric motor. This
device may also have a driver seat that
does not interfere with the ability of
the rider to stand and ride and may
also be designed to be powered by
human propulsion (CVC Section 407.5).

Limitations on their use include:
» Riders must use bike lanes when they
are present (CVC Section 21229).
» Motorized scooters are allowed on
all other bikeways unless prohibited
by the local jurisdiction (CVC Section
21230).

Electric Mobility Devices
108 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Active Transportation Toolkit | 109

» Motorized scooters are not allowed
on roads with a speed limit in
excess of 25 miles per hour, unless
in a bike lane or separated bikeway
(CVC section 21235). This prohibition
includes street designated as bicycle
routes. A local authority may, by
ordinance or resolution, authorize
the operation of a motorized scooter
outside of a bike lane or separated
bikeway on a highway with a speed
limit of up to 35 miles per hour.
» Riders are prohibited from using
sidewalks, except when entering or
leaving adjacent property.
» A helmet is required for all riders
under 18 years of age.
» A valid driver’s license or instruction
permit is required.
» Speeds are limited to 15 miles per
hour,
» Leaving a scooter on its side on a
sidewalk, or otherwise parking one so
that there was not an adequate path
for pedestrians, is prohibited.

Electrically
Motorized Boards
According to California Vehicle Code,
the term “electrically motorized board”
is any wheeled device that has a
floorboard designed to be stood upon
when riding with a maximum speed
of 20 miles per hour. The device may
be designed to also be powered by
human propulsion (CVC Section 313.5).
» Use is restricted to roads with
speed limits of 35 miles per hour or
less, unless operated in a bike lane
or separated bikeway. On other
bikeways, speed is limited to 15 miles
per hour (CVC Section 21294).
» Riders must be 16 years of age or
older.
» A helmet is required for all riders.

Electric Personal
Assistive Mobility
Devices
According to California Vehicle Code,
the term “electric personal assistive
mobility device” (EPAMD) means a self-
balancing, non-tandem two-wheeled
device that can turn in place, with a
maximum speed of 12.5 miles per hour
(CVC Section 313). The most common
example is the Segway. “Pedestrian”
includes use of EPMADs (CVC
Section 467). EPAMDs can operate
on bikeways and sidewalks unless
prohibited by the local jurisdiction,
but must yield to pedestrians (CVC
Sections 21281.5 and 21282)
Access
Laws for each electric device are
different. E-bikes generally have
more options for locations to ride,
as summarized in Table 8.

Bike and
Scooter Share
In addition to private ownership, bikes,
e-bikes, and scooters are available
through short-term point-to-point
rental or “shared” systems. Bike share
systems at first were primarily based
on docks, or unmanned physical
locations where a bike could be
rented or returned, with docks located
at destinations across an area.

More recently “dockless” systems,
where bikes or scooters, equipped
with appropriate wireless technology,
could be rented at any location or
left at any location, have become
more widespread. The systems can
often be deployed and operated
at lower cost that docked systems.

However, concerns have arisen
in some locations about dockless
bikes or scooters being parked in
inappropriate locations, in particular
when they have blocked pedestrian
flows. Some cities have responded to
this by developing “corrals,” marked
pavement locations where bikes or
scooters can be left standing out of the
way of pedestrians and other traffic.

Considerations
When Determining
Access Policy
When determining access for electric
bicycles and other electric devices, the
following issues should be considered:
» Electric mobility devices provide
increased mobility for users who are
less able to use regular bicycles due to
age or disability.
» Terrain with frequent elevation
changes may discourage some
people from walking or bicycling
as transportation. Electric mobility
devices may encourage more people
to reduce use of motor vehicles.
» Higher-speed electric mobility
devices may generally be faster than
most bicycles and pedestrians.
» Some non-electric bike users and
pedestrians may consider e-bikes and
other powered to detract from their
experience on bikeways and trails.
» Consideration should be given to
regulating parking and storage of
devices so that they do not impede
pedestrian or other traffic, in
particular through the use of corrals.
» The data that bike and scooter share
companies collect can be valuable to
a jurisdiction seeking to understand
the movement of people and
planning for them.

Device Type Shared-Use Paths Bike Lanes Bike Routes Separated Bikeways Class 1 E-Bike Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Class 2 E-Bike Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Class 3 E-Bike Prohibited Allowed Allowed Prohibited
Electric Scooter** Allowed** Allowed** Allowed** Allowed** Electrically Motorized Board Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Electric Personal Assistive
Mobility Device Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
* Local jurisdictions may enact further restrictions.
** Prohibited on roadways with speed limits above 35 miles per hour Table 8: State Restrictions* on Electric Mobility Devices by Facility Type 110 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Active Transportation Toolkit | 111

Policy Options
Use of these devices is expect to
continue to expand, and sharing
services are expected to spread.

Electric scooters have spread rapidly
into different cities, but some concerns
have attended their spread. A large
concern with scooters has been their
mixing with much slower pedestrian
traffic. Some cities have responded
by prohibiting sidewalk use, but on
streets with fast vehicles and heavy
traffic without bike lanes, they may be
forced t to mix with vehicular traffic,
which may be less comfortable or safe
and reduce overall use. Speed limits
for scooters are another option, but
enforcement may be challenging.

Jurisdictions have several policy
options for e-bikes and other
electric mobility devices. Different
policies may be enacted for each
device. Access options include:

Maintain existing access as
allowed by state law.

This option provides the most mobility
and accessibility for those who use
these transportation options.

Prohibit access to sidewalks and
shared-use paths, where pedestrians
are also present, but continue
access to other bikeways.
» This option separates the slowest and
some of the fastest users of the path,
but will not eliminate all fast riders, as
regular bicycles may travel as fast as
or faster than e-devices.
» This option would result in more
e-devices mixing with motor vehicle
traffic.
» In some locations, there may be no
access for electric scooters, which are
prohibited from roads with speed
limits greater than 35 mph unless
a bike lane or separated bikeway is
available.

For Class 3 e-bikes, prohibit access
to all bikeways except bike routes.
» This option provides the greatest
restriction and separation.
» This option would force e-devices
to mix with vehicular traffic, which
may be less comfortable or safe
and reduce overall use of e-devices,
and under some conditions may be
prohibited by state law.

When developing these policies,
consideration should also be
given to other issues:
» Develop policies concerning
parking and storage of these
devices, especially sharing systems,
to minimize impacts on flows of
pedestrians and other vehicles. These
policies may require use of corrals,
prohibit blocking of entrances, or
other aspects.
» Develop data sharing agreements
in conjunction with permitting new
shared services.
112 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Active Transportation Toolkit | 113

Community Improvement
Recommendations
This chapter presents the recommended walking and bicycling networks for the unincorporated communities of Yolo County. Projects were identified based on an evaluation of existing and planned facilities, including the safety, comfort level, and connectivity of these facilities. Anecdotal feedback heard during community engagement also played a key role in shaping the following recommendations.

Proposed improvements are intended to connect community members to the greater regional corridor network discussed in Chapter 4, provide safer and more comfortable access to destinations, and offer increased recreational opportunities.

A summary table with all recommended community
improvements can be found in Appendix D.

COMMUNITY
ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION

IMPROVEMENTS
06 114 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 115

Esparto
Esparto is the largest
unincorporated community in
Yolo County with a population
of about 3,700. Located 15 miles
west of Woodland and a short
distance south of Cache Creek,
Esparto serves as the gateway to
the scenic Capay Valley. The Capay
Valley is known for the annual
Almond Festival, which is an
event that celebrates the almond
bloom in Yolo County, attracting
many visitors to the region.

Existing Conditions
Esparto’s transportation network is
centered around SR 16 (Yolo Avenue),
which is a critical regional corridor
that provides a connection between
the Capay Valley and the cities of
Woodland, Davis, and Sacramento.

Yolo Avenue passes directly through
Esparto as a north-south corridor
and serves as the community’s main
street. Key destinations like the local
high school, library, and grocery
stores are concentrated around this
corridor. Because it is situated in an
agricultural region and facilitates
regional mobility, Yolo Avenue sees
frequent truck activity for goods
movement as well as high-speed and
high-volume traffic; this is especially
true relative to the rest of Esparto’s
roadway network. Visitors traveling to
the Cache Creek Casino Resort located
north of Esparto further amplifies
traffic volumes. Woodland Avenue,
Capay Street, Grafton Street, Madison
Street, and Plainfield Street are other
major roads in Esparto. Infrastructure
improvements that enhance walking
and biking safety were completed
recently along Yolo Avenue. These
improvements include the addition of
red textured crosswalks, green bicycle
lanes, and ADA-compliant curb ramps.

Pedestrians and bicyclists in Esparto
faces several challenges. SR 16 carries
significantly higher traffic volumes
than other local roads and is associated
with numerous safety concerns,
particularly due to vehicle speeds.

Crossing SR 16 to reach destinations
in the southern part of Esparto is
often uncomfortable for pedestrians,
and poor driver compliance, mainly
failure to yield at existing crosswalks,
makes crossing especially concerning
near schools. Additionally, although
some streets have sidewalks, the
overall network is fragmented, and
sidewalks are frequently discontinuous
even within single blocks or exist
only on one side of the street. Bicycle
infrastructure is also limited, with a
short segment of bike lanes currently
striped along SR 16. Currently, there are

4.4 miles of pedestrian facilities, which
include sidewalks and trails, and 0.9
miles of bicycle facilities in Esparto.

Community feedback highlights
a strong desire for improvements
and reinforces observed concerns.

Residents consistently expressed
discomfort with crossing SR 16
and emphasized the need for safer
pedestrian facilities near schools.

Many noted the inconvenience
caused by sidewalk gaps and the
lack of continuous walking routes.

Furthermore, participants in the
various community engagement
sessions voiced interest in expanding
bicycle facilities, particularly
through the creation of a bike
trail around the community.

The following are key destinations
for bicyclists and pedestrians
within Esparto include:
» Esparto Elementary, Esparto Middle,
and Esparto High Schools
» Grocery stores (notably Valley Food
Market and Dollar General)
» Esparto Regional Library
» Tuli Memorial Park
» Capay Valley Health and Community
Center
Recommendations
The Town of Esparto Community Plan
was consulted in the development of
these recommendations. This plan
supplements the Countywide General
Plan and provides further guidance
for growth specific to Esparto. Goals
CI-1 through CI-6 of the Circulation
Element of the Countywide General
Plan focus on creating a well-rounded
and efficient transportation system
by promoting policies that encourage
alternatives to automobile travel. These
goals aim to establish direct, safe,
and user-friendly routes for bicyclists
and pedestrians. Additionally, the
following policies were developed for
the Esparto community and concern
walking and biking in the community:

E-C2T.7. The County is encouraged
to identify a funding mechanism
to develop a complete sidewalk
system for the entire town.

E-CT.8. A multi-use path shall be
established around the town that can
be used for errands, to link principal
school routes, and for recreation . Such
a trail system shall also provide a link to
116 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 117

Figure 44: Esparto Key Destinations and Recommendations other routes that lead to Cache Creek,
Madison, and to the Capay Valley.

E-CT.9. A trail the length of the
Lamb Valley Slough shall be pursued
to facilitate east-west movement
for non-motorized traffic.

Proposed facilities recommended
in the Town of Esparto Community
Plan to support these goals were
integrated into the YATC Plan’s
set of recommendations. All new
recommendations to Esparto’s
existing bicycle and pedestrian
networks are shown in Figure 44.

Key recommendations for the
community of Esparto include:
» Construction of shared-use paths
along Plainfield Street and between
Lamb Valley Slough and Highway 16,
which will provide a dedicated space
for biking and walking and constitute
much of a bike loop around the
community.
» Designation of parts of Woodland
Avenue, Grafton Street, Madison
Street, Plainfield Street, Omega
Street, and Winters Street as bike
routes.
» Installation of high-visibility
crosswalks at the Yolo Avenue/SR 16
intersection.
» Installation of sidewalks on Capay
Street, Grafton Street, Madison Street,
County Road 21A, Antelope Street,
and along Yolo Avenue between the
Esparto High School parking lot and
Tuli Memorial Aquatics Center to fill
gaps in the sidewalk network and
make walking a more comfortable
experience around the community.
» Installation of rectangular rapid
flashing beacons at the intersections
of Grafton Street and Michael Drive
and Plainfield Street and Yolo Avenue
to improve pedestrian crossing safety
at Esparto Elementary and High
Schools.
» Installation of a pedestrian hybrid
beacon, west-facing blankout “No
Right-Turn on Red” sign, and high-
visibility crosswalks to improve
pedestrian crossing at the Woodland
Avenue and Yolo Avenue intersection.
» Installation of a PHB, high-visibility
crosswalks, and a pedestrian refuge
island on Highway 16.

Additional Considerations
The southeastern portion of
Esparto is zoned for residential
development based on planned land
use designations. As development
occurs, speeds along the Highway 16
corridor are expected to be reduced
to better accommodate changes in
land use, which would also support the
installation of new active transportation
improvements. New development
could potentially be leveraged to fund
and construct these improvements,
particularly a shared-use path
starting at the Lamb Valley Slough
and ending at Highway 16. This path
would provide another connection to
the existing pedestrian bridge near
Esparto High School, and could be
paired with a pedestrian hybrid beacon
(PHB) across Highway 16 to further
facilitate access to amenities south
of the highway and serve high school
students coming in from Madison.
118 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 119

Madison
Madison is a small residential
community located three
miles east of Esparto and has a
population of about 721 residents.

Madison is bisected by County
Road 89, with single-family
homes and a small high school
to the west of this road, and a
Yolo County Housing Authority
office and migrant center for farm
workers to the east. Due to the
limited services and amenities in
Madison, citizens frequently take
trips to Esparto for necessities like
groceries and healthcare services.

Existing Conditions
Madison’s current bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure is very
limited; the community has
approximately 0.25 miles of pedestrian
facilities and no dedicated bikeways.

Many areas of town lack sidewalks
entirely, and, where sidewalks do
exist, they are often discontinuous
and missing curb ramps. Only two
intersections, Main Street at Stephens
Street and Quincy Street at Stephens
Street, feature marked crosswalks.

In addition to lacking walking and
biking facilities, inadequate lighting
was a major concern expressed by
the Madison community. Existing
lighting infrastructure is limited to
block corners, which leaves mid-block
areas poorly lit. This contributes to
feelings of unsafety for those who
travel by foot or bike. Additional
factors that make walking and biking
uncomfortable include uneven street
surfaces, particularly along Tutt Street.

Key destinations for bicyclists and
pedestrians within Madison include:
» Guy’s Corner, a convenience store in
the northeast corner of Madison
» Madison Community High School
» The Madison post office
Recommendations
The planned bicycle and
pedestrian networks for Madison
are shown in Figure 45.

Key recommendations include:
» Designation of Main Street and part
of Railroad Street as bike routes.
» Installation of vertical deflections
such as speed bumps and humps
near and high-visibility crosswalks at
the Main Street and Railroad Street
intersection, which would improve
crossing safety for students at
Madison Community High School.
» Installation of sidewalks along
Rudolph Street, Archer Street, Main
Street, County Road 89, Stephens
Street, and Scott Street to fill in gaps
in the sidewalk network.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Lighting is recommended at mid-
block locations throughout Madison
to increase visibility of bicyclists and
pedestrians during the nighttime.

Figure 45: Madison Key Destinations and Recommendations 120 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 121

El Rio Villa
El Rio Villa is a quaint community
situated along Russell Boulevard
and just north of Putah Creek. Like
most unincorporated communities
in Yolo County, it is primarily
residential and has few amenities
or services of its own. However,
the small city of Winters is located
less than 2 miles southwest,
providing El Rio Villa residents
nearby access to local businesses,
schools, and essential services.

Existing Conditions
El Rio Villa is unique compared to
other Yolo County communities
because it is a residential complex
with a dense network of driveways
and parking bays. Sidewalks are
plentiful to facilitate pedestrian
access to homes from driveways. In
total, there are 0.22 miles of sidewalks
within El Rio Villa and no bikeways.

Due to Winters’ proximity and
availability of amenities, there is
community interest to improve
transportation options between El Rio
Villa and Winters. Currently, the most
straightforward path between the two
communities is via Russell Boulevard,
which is a high-speed roadway. Despite
the short distance and strong travel
demand between Winters and El Rio
Villa, there is inadequate pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure along this
segment of Russel Boulevard. As a
result, traveling by foot and bike on the
corridor feels unsafe due to the speed
of traffic and lack of protected paths.

Key destinations for bicyclists and
pedestrians within El Rio Villa include:
» Yolo County Housing Authority office
» YMCA center
Recommendations
Hi-visibility crosswalks are
recommended at the four
driveways within El Rio Villa:

Brinley Drive, Shams Way, and
both Fredericks Drive locations.

Figure 46: El Rio Villa Key Destinations and Recommendations 122 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 123

Yolo
Yolo is a small community
located approximately 5 miles
northwest of Woodland with a
population of 260. The town is
situated along Cache Creek and
just north of Interstate 5. There
are few commercial businesses or
amenities within this community.

While Cache Creek High School is
located in Yolo, many Yolo students
attend school in nearby Woodland.

Existing Conditions
As heard during community
engagement efforts, Yolo residents,
particularly those that are retired, enjoy
walking and biking. Unfortunately,
the existing infrastructure in the
community does not adequately
support these activities. Sidewalks are
limited, totaling only 0.41 miles, and
there are no designated bikeways.

Furthermore, speeding is a significant
concern in the community, especially
along Clay Street and 1st Street.

These roads carry high-speed traffic
between Yolo and County Road 98.

Key destinations for bicyclists and
pedestrians within Yolo include:
» The Yolo post office
» Yolo Branch Library
» Yolo Mini Mart
» Cache Creek High School
Recommendations
The planned bicycle and
pedestrian networks for Yolo
are shown in Figure 47.

Key recommendations include:
» Installation of sidewalks on 1st Street,
2nd Street, 5th Street, Washington
Street, Sacramento Street, and Clay
Street to fill in gaps in the sidewalk
network.
» Designation of a bicycle boulevard
on Sacramento Street to facilitate
connections to the Yolo Branch
Library.
» Installation of vertical deflection
devices such as speed bumps and
humps, on Clay Street and 1st Street
to calm traffic.
» Installation of a rectangular rapid
flashing beacon and high-visibility
crosswalks at the Clay Street and
2nd Street intersection to improve
crossing safety for schoolchildren and
other pedestrians.
» Implementation of traffic calming
elements along Clay Street and 1st
Street to slow vehicles down.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
In addition, streetlights would be
beneficial along 2nd Street; at the
Sacramento Street and 5th Street
intersection; and the County Road
99 and 2nd Street intersection,
which is a three-legged intersection
with poor sight distance.

Figure 47: Yolo Key Destinations and Recommendations
124 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 125

Dunnigan
Dunnigan is a community located
approximately 19 miles northwest
of Woodland with a population
of 1,400. The town is comprised
of two distinct areas, which are
divided by Interstate (I-5): the
northern area, which consists
of homes and a few businesses,
and the southern area, which
consists of amenities and services.

Dunnigan serves as a convenient
stop for I-5 travelers, with rest
stops, lodging, and gas stations
located nearby the Interstate
exit ramps. The southeast corner
of the community features
amenities such as a park with
playgrounds and picnic areas,
providing residents with outdoor
recreational opportunities.

Existing Conditions
Despite many key destinations
being in the southern portion of
Dunnigan and a large residential
area in the northern portion, there is
no continuous pedestrian or bicycle
pathway connecting these two areas
of the town. Furthermore, there are
no existing sidewalks and bicycle
facilities in the northern part of
Dunnigan. There are limited facilities
in the southeast portion, where
there is approximately one mile of
sidewalks, as displayed in Figure 48.

The presence of I-5, which passes
through the middle of Dunnigan, plays
a role in the fragmentation of the
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

There is only one bridge, located in
the north, that permits crossing over
I-5. County Road (CR) 99W and the
I-5 corridor also contribute to heavy
vehicle traffic near Dunnigan’s key
destinations, especially the post office
and gas stations. Although no formal
bikeways exist along CR 99W, people
often bike along this route to reach the
amenities there, which is a journey that
can feel uncomfortable and unsafe.

Agricultural equipment is also
prevalent on Dunnigan’s roads,
further making them feel unsafe in an
environment that already lacks proper
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Like other unincorporated
communities in Yolo County, lighting
is inadequate, creating an additional
barrier to walking and biking at night.

For example, the intersection of
Lara Lane and County Road 99 was
identified as a crash-prone location
due to the lack of lighting and
limited sight distance to the north.

Key destinations for bicyclists and
pedestrians within Dunnigan include:
» The Dunnigan post office
» Dunnigan Community Park
» Gas station/convenience stores
located at the intersection of County
Road 89 and County Road 6
126 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 127

Recommendations
The planned bicycle and
pedestrian networks for Dunnigan
are shown in Figure 48. Key
recommendations include:
» Installation of bike lanes on County
Road 88 to provide a dedicated space
for bicycle travel.
» Construction of a shared-use path
along County Road 4 to provide
dedicated bicycle and pedestrian
access across I-5.
» Construction of shared-use paths
along County Roads 5, 6, 88, and
99W to provide an alternate route for
residents to the southeast portion of
Dunnigan.
» Installation of high-visibility
crosswalks on County Road 4 at
County Road 88A and County Road
88B to connect residents to the
planned shared-use path.
» Implementation of traffic calming
measures along County Road 4
between County Road 88 and the I-5
crossing to slow vehicular traffic.
» Installation of sidewalks along County
Road 89 and Main Street to connect
the two areas on either side of County
Road 99W.
» A pedestrian hybrid beacon and high-
visibility crosswalks to provide a better
connection to the planned shared-
use path on County Road 99W.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
In addition, lighting is recommended
along County Road 4, especially at the
intersection with County Road 99W.

Figure 48: Dunnigan Key Destinations and Recommendations 128 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 129

Knights Landing
Knights Landing has a population
of 1,100 and is located in the
northeastern portion of Yolo
County, about 25 miles northwest
of Sacramento and 9 miles north
of Woodland. Situated on the
banks of the Sacramento River
and Sycamore Slough, Knights
Landing is a popular place for
fishing, boating and water skiing.

The town core features most of
the community’s amenities and
services, including a community
park and the Science and
Technology Academy, a charter
school that was founded in 2010.

Existing Conditions
Although Knights Landing does
not have dedicated bikeways, most
roadways include sidewalks on both
sides. In total, there are approximately

2.6 miles of sidewalks. However,
some of these sidewalks are poorly
maintained and fail to meet ADA
standards, lacking essential features
such as corner curb ramps. Community
feedback highlighted Mill Street in
particular as an area that could benefit
from improved ADA accessibility.

Speeding is a top concern for Knights
Landing residents. State Route 113
(Locust Street) is a regional highway
and serves as the community’s
main corridor. As such, this road
accommodates both local and regional
traffic. Similarly, State Route 116 carries
semi-truck traffic along the southern
portion of town. These two routes
experience high traffic volumes and
speeds and affect feelings of safety of
pedestrians and bicyclists. Residents
expressed particular concerns about
crossing safety at Locust Street and
7th Street, especially for students who
must cross Locust Street to access the
Science and Technology Academy.

Key destinations for bicyclists
and pedestrians within Knights
Landing are displayed in Figure

49. Highlights include:
» Science and Technology Academy
» Knights Landing Boat Launch
» Knights Landing Community Park
» Knights Landing Branch Library
» Wayside Market.

Figure 49: Knights Landing Key Destinations and Recommendations 130 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 131

Recommendations
The planned bicycle and pedestrian
networks for Knights Landing
are shown in Figure 49. Key
recommendations include:
» Installation of sidewalks along SR 45,
SR 113 between 3rd Street and the
bridge, Oak Grove Avenue, Dixon
Street, Railroad Street, and County
Road 116 near Railroad Street to fill
gaps in the sidewalk network.
» Designation of 6th Street as a bike
route to provide a connection
between proposed shared use paths
around the town.
» Installation of rectangular rapid
flashing beacons along Locust Street
at 6th Street, 7th Street, and 9th
Street to improve crossing safety for
Knights Landing and Science and
Technology Academy students and
other pedestrians. In addition, curb
extensions should be implemented
at 6th Street and a pedestrian
refuge island at 9th Street to reduce
pedestrian crossing distances across
Locust Street.
» Addition of curb ramps on Mill Street
and 6th Street and 7th Street for ADA
accessibility near the Science and
Technology Academy.
» Installation of high-visibility
crosswalks at the Locust Street and
County Road 116 intersection to
enhance visibility of a pedestrian
crossing area.
» Installation of enhanced crossings
at the County Road 116 and Hershey
intersection.
» Implementation of gateway traffic
calming elements near town edges
along SR 113 and County Road 116 to
slow vehicles as they enter Knights
Landing.
» A shared-use path loop around
Knights Landing and along County
Road 113, providing a link to the
regional corridor network.
132 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 133

Clarksburg
The community of Clarksburg has
a population of 330 and is located
about 11 miles directly south of
the City of West Sacramento. The
community is nestled alongside
the Sacramento River and is
surrounded by various sloughs.

Clarksburg’s elementary, middle,
and high schools are concentrated
in its town core which is situated
between Clarksburg Road and the
Elk Slough. The town is renowned
for its rich agricultural heritage,
which brings agrotourism to
Clarksburg. This is particularly
true regarding its vineyards;
Clarksburg lies within the
Clarksburg American Viticultural
Area (AVA), which is a prestigious
wine-producing region.

The Clarksburg Branch Trail
Line Extension is a planned
multi-use path within the Great
California Delta Trail network
that will connect Clarksburg to
West Sacramento. Construction
of this trail will further close
gaps within the network.

Existing Conditions
Currently, there are 0.32 miles of
sidewalks within Clarksburg and no
dedicated bikeways. Eastbound traffic
entering the community on Clarksburg
Road, the main road in town, travels
at high speeds and poses safety
concerns to citizens. This is especially
concerning for students located north
of Clarksburg Road, who must cross
this road to access Clarksburg’s towns.

Key destinations for bicyclists and
pedestrians within Clarksburg
are displayed include:
» Delta Elementary Charter School
» Clarksburg Middle School
» Delta High School
» Holland Market
» Yolo County Library – Clarksburg
Branch
» Old Sugar Mill
134 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 135

Recommendations
The Clarksburg Area Community Plan
identifies several goals and policies
to support enhanced circulation for
all modes of transportation within
the community, but does not identify
specific locations for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. The planned
bicycle and pedestrian networks for
Clarksburg are shown in Figure 50.

Key recommendations include:
» Installation of sidewalks on South
Center Street near the post office and
on Sacramento Street.
» Construction of a shared-use path
along Willow Avenue to provide a
dedicated space for walking and
bicycling.
» Installation of rectangular rapid
flashing beacons and high-visibility
crosswalks at the Clarksburg Road/
Willow Avenue and Clarksburg Road/
School Street intersections to improve
pedestrian crossing safety near
schools and other key destinations.
» Implementation of curb ramps at
the School Street and Netherlands
Avenue intersection for ADA
accessibility.
» Speed table and high-visibility
crosswalks along Clarksburg Road to
slow traffic.
» Designation of School Street from
Clarksburg Road to Netherlands
Avenue as a bike route.
» Implementation of gateway traffic
calming on Clarksburg Road near
Delta Breeze Court to slow vehicles
down as they enter Clarksburg.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Lighting is recommended throughout
Clarksburg Road, especially between
Willow Avenue and Delta Breeze Court.

Figure 50: Clarksburg Key Destinations and Recommendations 136 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 137

Zamora
Zamora is a quiet Yolo County
community that is located
about 25 miles northwest of
Sacramento along Interstate-5,
with an estimated population
of 260. Surrounded by farmland,
it is a primarily agricultural that
supports crops such as almonds,
walnuts, and tomatoes. The
community has amenities such as
a post office and a volunteer fire
department. St. Agnes Catholic
Church, a historical landmark,
is also located in Zamora.

Existing Conditions
Active transportation facilities are very
limited in Zamora. Currently, there
are 0.25 miles of sidewalks within
Zamora, and no dedicated bikeways.

Recommendations
The planned bicycle and
pedestrian networks for Zamora
are shown in Figure 51. Key
recommendations include:
» Designating parts of Blacks Street,
Second Street, and Main Street as
bicycle routes to provide a bicycle
connection to the regional corridors
network.
» Installation of sidewalks along Blacks
Street and County Road 13 to provide
dedicated space for walking.
» Installation of bike lanes along
County Road 13 to provide a bicycle
connection to the regional corridors
network.

Figure 51: Zamora Key Destinations and Recommendations
138 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 139

Capay Valley
The communities of Capay,
Guinda, and Rumsey are all
located within the Capay Valley
and are situated along State
Route 16. These communities
have longstanding agricultural
heritages; the area is famous for
attractions such as its various
lavender farms as well as the
annual, five-town (Rumsey, Guinda,
Brooks, Capay, and Esparto)
Almond Festival. The Cache Creek
Casino Resort also draws many
visitors to the Capay Valley.

Existing Conditions
Active transportation facilities
are nearly nonexistent in Capay,
Guinda, and Rumsey, with the
exception of sidewalks along SR
16 in Capay. Figures 52 through
54 display the existing facilities,
key destinations, and proposed
pedestrian and bicycle facilities
for Capay, Guinda, and Rumsey.

Capay
In Capay, there are 0.35 miles of
enhanced shoulders along Highway 16
which are designated for pedestrian
use. The Capay Open Space Park is a
key destination for residents of this
community. Key recommendations
for Capay include the following:
» Construction of a shared-use path
along County Road 85 to provide a
dedicated space for bicycling and
walking.
» Implementation of gateway traffic
calming along State Route 16 on town
edges to slow vehicles as they enter
Capay.
» Installation of a rectangular rapid
flashing beacon at the State Route 16
and County Road 85 intersection to
improve pedestrian crossing safety.

Guinda
Currently, there are no sidewalks or
bikeways within Guinda. The Guinda
Corner Market is a key destination for
residents, serving as the community’s
grocery store. Key recommendations
for Guinda include the following:
» Implementation of gateway traffic
calming along State Route 16 near
town edges to slow vehicles as they
enter Guinda.
» Installation of high-visibility
crosswalks rapid rectangular flashing
beacons to improve pedestrian
crossing safety at the following
intersections:
» State Route 16 and Forest
Avenue.
» State Route 16 and County Road

99. » Construction of a shared-use path
along Forest Avenue to provide a
dedicated space for bicycling and
walking.

Rumsey
Currently, Rumsey does not have
any sidewalks or bikeways. Gateway
traffic calming on State Route 16 near
town edges is recommended to slow
vehicles down as they enter Rumsey .

Figure 52:

Capay Key Destinations and Recommendations
Figure 53:

Guinda Key Destinations and Recommendations
Figure 54:

Rumsey Key Destinations and Recommendations
140 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 141

Other Yolo County Improvements
In addition to the regional active transportation corridors identified in Chapter 4, there is a need for on-street improvements on key routes throughout the region. These routes may parallel or connect proposed off-street facilities, or provide additional routes between the communities of Yolo County. In some cases, implementation of these routes may occur ahead of the buildout of the regional connectors as part of roadway improvement or rehabilitation projects. These routes, shown in Figure 54 along with intercommunity corridors, include the following:
» Esparto to Dunnigan via CR 85 to CR 6,
» County Roads 98 and 99D between Woodland and Davis
» East-west trail connections via county roads 27 and 29 » Madison to Woodland via CR 90 and Gibson Road
» CR90A to Winters
» Putah Creek Road
Figure 55: Other Yolo County Improvements
142 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Community Active Transportation Improvements | 143

IMPLEMENTATION

AND FUNDING
Implementation
The proposed county-wide active
transportation network is anticipated to
be implemented in the following ways:
» through individual projects;
» through partnerships between
multiple agencies;
» in conjunction with adjacent land
development projects; and
» in conjunction with maintenance and
capacity enhancement projects, such
as roadway widening or sidewalk
rehabilitation projects.

Recommendations in this report
will be implemented by Yolo
County and through coordination
and collaboration with YoloTD and
other partners, including Caltrans
and advocacy and community
organizations in Yolo County and
throughout the Sacramento Region.

Full implementation of this ATP
is a long-term process that could
span decades. Progress towards the
completion of projects in this plan will
be reported through periodic updates
by YoloTD and County staff to the
Yolo County Board of Supervisors.

Implementation will depend on
the availability of funding and in
some cases occur over many years.

This chapter provides an overview
of available funding sources at the
time of publication, along with
recommendations for ongoing
collaboration and accountability.
07 Funding
Funding for bicycle and pedestrian
projects are programs occur primarily
through grant programs. Multiple
federal, state, regional, and local
funding sources are available which
can support the planning, design, and
construction of facilities. A full resource
table is provided in Table 9. Some of
the funding sources most relevant
to this plan include the following.
» In addition to supporting the regional
distribution of funds from several
state and federal programs, SACOG
also provides its own funding for
active transportation projects.

The SACOG Regional Active
Transportation Program funds active
transportation projects and programs
that are consistent with the vision
of the Blueprint and support the
implementation of the long‐range
transportation plans for the SACOG
area.
» The California Office of Traffic
Safety provides grants for education,
encouragement, and enforcement
efforts aimed at improving pedestrian
and bicyclist safety.
» The Active Transportation
Program (ATP) consolidates diverse
transportation initiatives into a single
program with an annual budget
of around $123 million from state
and federal sources. ATP aims to
increase walking and biking trips,
enhance safety for non-motorized
users, support regional greenhouse
gas reduction efforts, promote
public health, and provide a range
of projects benefiting various user
groups, including disadvantaged
communities.
» Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grants are offered by
Caltrans to encourage local and
regional planning goals that support
the implementation of Regional
Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategies (RTP/
SCS) projects. These funds can
be used for a variety of focused
community planning projects,
including those that support rural
active transportation, temporary
demonstration projects, and
community needs assessments.
144 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Implementation and Funding | 145

» The Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)
Program allocates funds to states
for transportation projects aimed
at alleviating traffic congestion and
enhancing air quality, especially in
regions of the country struggling to
meet national air quality standards.
» The Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) is a federal-aid
initiative designed to achieve a
significant reduction in traffic
fatalities and serious injuries across
all public roads, including non-
state-owned roads and tribal land.

California’s Local HSIP focuses
on infrastructure projects with
recognized crash reduction benefits.

Funding can be used for preliminary
engineering, right of way, and
construction.
» The Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) grant program has a budget
of $5 billion in appropriated funds
spanning from 2022 to 2026. The
SS4A program supports regional,
local, and tribal endeavors through
grants to prevent roadway fatalities
and severe injuries. Projects with a
direct link to bicycle and pedestrian
safety are eligible for funding.
» The California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) requires
lead agencies to disclose the
environmental effects and identify
necessary mitigation measures
associated with discretionary
actions such as those related to
land development or transportation
projects. Transportation-related
elements of CEQA review include
analyses of potential impacts to
transportation system safety and
VMT. Associated mitigation measures
can include the implementation
of transportation infrastructure
improvements, programmatic
improvements, and/or financial
contributions towards such
improvements. VMT mitigation is
an emerging practice area and new
strategies such as local and regional
VMT mitigation banks are being
implemented by lead agencies
throughout California. Moreover, the
recent passage of AB 130 will result
in the establishment of a statewide
VMT mitigation bank. Funding
for YATC projects could occur as a
product of CEQA review for local
land development or transportation
projects within Yolo County, or
even for land development or
transportation projects outside of
the region as part of a statewide VMT
mitigation bank.
» The Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) provides matching
grants to state and local governments
to support the development of
outdoor recreation areas and facilities,
including trail construction. Since
its establishment, the program has
allocated more than $17 billion to
federal, state, and local agencies.
» The Recreational Trails Program
(RTP) is administered at the state
level by the California Department of
Parks and Recreation and Caltrans
Active Transportation Program. It
allocates funds annually to develop
and maintain recreational trails and
trails-related facilities.

In addition to the sources listed above,
there are local funding options to
consider (such as Local Transportation
Funds, sales tax revenues, and toll
revenues, etc.) that could serve
as strong sources of local match
funding. Similarly, local developer
fees may be considered. These
local fees from land development
projects can provide matching
funding or full implementation of
YATC active transportation projects
if there is a nexus between them.
146 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Implementation and Funding | 147

Regional Funding Sources
SACOG Regional Active
Transportation Program
https://www.sacog.org/funding/regional-funding-programs/regional-active- transportation-program
SACOG Engage, Empower,
Implement
https://www.sacog.org/funding/regional-funding-programs/engage- empower-implement
Statewide Funding Sources
California Office of Traffic
Safety https://www.ots.ca.gov/grants/
Active Transportation
Program (ATP) https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program Local Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(HSIP)
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/ highway-safety-improvement-program
Local Partnership Program https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/local-partnership-program Solutions for Congested
Corridors Program (SCCP) https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/solutions-for-congested-corridors-program Sustainable Transportation
Planning (STP) Grant
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/division-of- transportation-planning/regional-and-community-planning/sustainable- transportation-planning-grants
State Transportation
Improvement Program
(STIP)
https://catc.ca.gov/programs/state-transportation-improvement-program California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA
Mitigations)
https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/sb-743/
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
Program
https://sgc.ca.gov/grant-programs/ahsc/
State Highway Operation
and Protection Program
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/financial-programming/state-highway- operation-protection-program-shopp-minor-program-shopp
Recreational Trails Program
(RTP) https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24324
Transformative Climate
Communities Program https://sgc.ca.gov/grant-programs/tcc/ Environmental
Enhancement and
Mitigation Grant Program
https://resources.ca.gov/grants/environmental-enhancement-and-mitigation- eem
Table 9: Funding Sources
Federal Funding Sources
Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement
Program (CMAQ)
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/cmaq.cfm Promoting Resilient
Operations for
Transformative, Efficient,
and Cost-Saving
Transportation (PROTECT)
https://www.transportation.gov/rural/grant-toolkit/promoting-resilient- operations-transformative-efficient-and-cost-saving
Better Utilizing
Investments to Leverage
Development (BUILD)
Grant Program
https://www.transportation.gov/BUILDgrants
Reconnecting
Communities Pilot (RCP)
Program
https://www.transportation.gov/rural/grant-toolkit/reconnecting- communities-pilot-rcp-program
Rural Surface
Transportation Grant
(RSTG) Program
https://www.transportation.gov/grants/rural-surface-transportation- grant-program
Safe Streets and Roads
for All (SS4A) https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A Surface Transportation
Block Grant Program
(STBG)
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/stp/
Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/index.htm 148 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Implementation and Funding | 149

The RAISE grant which funds the
YATC planning project includes funds
dedicated towards design and pre-
construction work on one to three
corridors, bringing them closer to
completion. Two intercommunity
corridor segments were chosen
to advance into the design phase:

Madison to Esparto, and Davis to
Woodland. They were selected based
on performance against the project’s
prioritization criteria, input received
by community members and TAC
over the two outreach phases, and
available budget. The design will
allow the corridors to be developed
to a level of completion that positions
them for external competitive grant
construction funds. The remaining
projects from the YATC Prioritized
Corridors list will be advanced when
additional funding becomes available.

Madison-Esparto
The first corridor is a 2.7-mile shared-
use path that originates in Esparto, at
County Road 87, and ends in Madison,
at County Road 89 (corridor #10).

Currently, the only connection between
the two interdependent communities
is SR 16, a high-speed road not suitable
for active travel. Construction of a
shared-use path would provide a
dedicated and more comfortable
facility for those who wish to walk, bike,
and roll between Madison and Esparto,
YATC Phase 2: Design
addressing the need, as expressed
during community engagement, for
a safer and more direct connection.

Davis-Woodland
The second corridor is a 6.5-mile
shared-use path that will start on
East Covell Boulevard in Davis and
be routed alongside County Road
102, turning left onto County Road
27, and finally onto Harry Lorenzo
Avenue, ending at County Road 25A
in Woodland (corridor #37 and a
portion of corridor #36). County Road
102 was the site of several crashes
involving bicyclists within the study
period (2018 – 2022). By constructing
an off-street path, the project not
only provides a facility specifically
for active travel, but it also creates a
spatial separation that significantly
reduces collision risk for vulnerable
users such as bicyclists and pedestrians
commuting between the two cities.

Other Improvements
The YATC regional active transportation
network is augmented by two in-
progress projects that are being funded
separately and managed by other
local agencies: the Clarksburg Branch
Trail Line Extension and the I-505
bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing.

The Clarksburg Branch Line Trail
Extension (corridor #45) is a planned

7.5-mile shared-use trail intended
to connect West Sacramento with
Clarksburg and serve as a key link
within the Great California Delta Trail
and SACOG’s Sacramento Regional Trail
Network. It will feature parallel paved
and unpaved paths to better serve
bicyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians.

This trail is currently in the design
phase and led by the City of West
Sacramento, in partnership with Yolo
County, Delta Protection Commission,
and YoloTD, with funding from SACOG.

The City of Winters, Yolo County, and
Caltrans District 3 are working together
to create an active transportation
connection between Winters and El Rio
Villa, via a planned multi-use path and
pedestrian bridge along the south side
of the existing I-505 overpass along
Russell Boulevard (a portion of corridor
#27). This facility will improve crossing
safety for pedestrians and cyclists and
especially benefit the low-income
residents of El Rio Villa that walk and
bike to access Winter’s services.
150 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Implementation and Funding | 151

Measures of Effectiveness
and Tracking Progress
This plan establishes a framework for improving connectivity within and between communities in a rural region by increasing opportunities for walking, biking, and rolling. By focusing on both local and regional connections, the plan aims to expand access to reliable active transportation options for people of all ages and abilities. To ensure these goals translate into real, measurable improvements on the ground, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential as implementation occurs. The metrics outlined below are directly tied to the plan’s objectives and provide a consistent way to track progress, assess effectiveness, and guide future decision-making.

1. Improve bicycling and walking connectivity, access, and safety » Metric: Reduction in collisions involving Bicyclists and Pedestrians » Metric: Number of bicycle facility and sidewalk gap closures

2. Expand the countywide trail system
» Metric: Number of funding applications submitted
» Metric: Miles of new trails constructed

3. Remove travel barriers for low income and minority residents » Metric: Number of projects built in disadvantaged communities » Metric: Increase in mode share of people biking or walking

4. Create connections within unincorporated Yolo County communities
» Metric: Number of projects completed within unincorporated Yolo County communities
Potential Outcomes
Implementation of the planned
active transportation networks and
supporting programs may increase the
share of trips being made by walking
or bicycling. By expanding facilities
and prioritizing low-stress bikeways
and connectivity to destinations, mode
share for active travel is expected to
increase. Yolo County’s share of trips
made by bicycle is considerably large,
likely due to the robust biking culture
and infrastructure seen in the City
of Davis. An increase in bikeways,
coupled with increased accesibility
via e-bikes, could see even more bike
trips, especially those connecting
the rest of the county to Davis.

Implementing this plan is expected
to result in other significant
improvements, such as a reduction
in the risk of collisions involving
pedestrians and bicyclists and
improved health outcomes
associated with increased physical
activity by residents in the region.
152 | Yolo Active Transportation Corridors Plan Implementation and Funding | 153

ATTACHMENT:B

2026
Brian Abbanat Yolo Transportation District 3/2/2026
Executing the Vision: Yolo Active
Transportation Corridors (YATC)
Implementation Strategy

Contents
EXECUTING THE VISION: YATC Implementation Strategy ................................................ 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 3 Factors Affecting Implementation ........................................................................... 3 YATC System Map .................................................................................................... 5 Phase 1 Intercommunity Projects ............................................................................ 6 Phase 1 Projects: Summary Map ............................................................................. 7 Phase 1 Projects: Summary Funding Table ............................................................... 8 Phase 1 Projects: Financial Status Summary ............................................................ 9 YATC Implementation Progress ................................................................................ 10 Madison-Esparto Segment.................................................................................... 11 Woodland-Davis Segment .................................................................................... 14 Grant Avenue / I-505 Overcrossing ........................................................................ 16 Clarksburg Branch Line Trail Extension .................................................................. 18 Phase 2 Intercommunity Projects Priorities ........................................................... 20 Phase 2 Projects: Summary Map ........................................................................... 21 West Sacramento – Davis: County Road 32A .......................................................... 21 Winters – Davis .................................................................................................... 24 Woodland – Madison ............................................................................................ 26 Intracommunity Improvements ............................................................................. 27 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 28 Maintaining Focus ................................................................................................ 28

EXECUTING THE VISION:

YATC Implementation Strategy

Introduction
The Yolo Active Transportation
Corridors (YATC) plan represents a
bold vision for a network of paved off-
street trails connecting Yolo County
cities and unincorporated
communities for functional
transportation as well as recreational
purposes. With the increasing
popularity of electric-assist bicycles
(“e-bikes”) and speeds capable of up
to 28 mph, travel between
communities is more feasible than
ever while opening a wide range of
recreational and tourism
opportunities. YATC provides a
roadmap for implementing Yolo County’s part of the larger regional network.

YATC will require substantial time and resources to implement and a long-term timeframe – decades - should be assumed. While these projects can be a challenge to implement, each segment has a specific purpose: to serve communities, address safety problems, connect communities, and provide access and opportunities. Those deeper values should inspire civic leaders, professional staff, and stakeholders to persevere when confronting implementation challenges.

Each trail segment within the plan represents a significant, individual project that must be fully resourced to
materialize. By the time construction breaks ground, 95 percent of the effort including planning, engineering, and securing funding have already occurred. However, pre-
construction phases are often the most difficult to
complete. These largely invisible activities must be
supported politically and prioritized financially to place individual projects in competitive, “shovel ready” positions either for competitive grants or other funding opportunities.

While demand and community support for these facilities are strong in Yolo County, plans such as YATC can easily fade into the background of countywide priorities. This

implementation strategy reflects YoloTD’s commitment to continue advancing the YATC vision as an important transportation priority in Yolo County.

Purpose
This implementation strategy complements the YATC Plan by placing a focus on project delivery. It exists as a living document with annual updates to demonstrate progress on specific projects, curating enthusiasm for the broader vision. As project milestones are reached, funding secured, and segments are constructed, this document will recognize the progress made. Completed projects will be highlighted and cited as examples of the need to build on successes.

Factors Affecting Implementation
Completing a countywide trail network planning
process is an exciting milestone that highlights the
many ways connectivity and quality of life can be
enhanced across the county. While implementation
requires thoughtful coordination and sustained effort,
the opportunities for success are strong. Key
considerations include partner agency priorities,
funding strategies, stakeholder engagement, and long-
term commitment to completing the network.

Partner Agency Priorities
Because most YATC segments are located adjacent to
or within the public right of way—primarily under the
jurisdiction of Yolo County or Caltrans—continued
coordination and collaboration with these agencies
will be central to successful implementation.

Encouragingly, YATC projects can move forward either
as stand-alone efforts or, ideally, in partnership with safety improvements or roadway rehabilitation projects
as opportunities arise. Each project will follow its own path, but with proactive coordination, these partnerships can create efficient and mutually beneficial outcomes.

Funding
Securing funding is an important step in advancing YATC. While there is currently no dedicated local funding source for design and construction, competitive grant programs for active transportation continue to provide meaningful opportunities. Although these programs are highly competitive, strong project readiness, partnerships, and demonstrated community benefits can position YATC projects well for success over time.

Capital funding opportunities tend to be more available than maintenance funding.

Because ongoing maintenance typically falls to the owning agency, planning ahead for durable materials and clear maintenance agreements can help minimize long-term costs and support system reliability. Establishing these arrangements early will strengthen project sustainability.

Limited local resources can affect the pace at which individual segments advance. Many grant programs reward projects that include local matching funds and given the multi-mile nature of many trail segments, even modest match requirements can represent significant investments. With strategic phasing, partnership development, and continued pursuit of funding opportunities, YATC projects can remain competitive alongside other transportation priorities.

Community & Stakeholder Support
Community outreach for YATC
demonstrated strong enthusiasm for the
trail network among participants. As
implementation moves forward,
particularly in predominantly agricultural
areas, continued engagement with
adjacent property owners and
stakeholders will be important. Proactive
communication can help address
concerns related to agricultural
operations, such as spraying and vehicle
movement, and reinforce the benefits of
well-designed trail corridors.

Concerns about unpermitted
encampments are sometimes raised in
trail discussions. However, because YATC
segments are largely located outside urbanized areas where unhoused individuals typically rely on services, this risk is expected to be relatively limited. Thoughtful design and ongoing coordination can further support positive outcomes.

Long-Term Commitment
The YATC vision is ambitious and forward-looking. With sustained leadership and continued recognition of the network’s transportation and quality-of-life benefits, steady progress is achievable. Maintaining YATC as a regional priority alongside other transportation modes will help ensure momentum continues. With persistence and partnership, the countywide trail network can be successfully delivered over time.

YATC System Map

Phase 1 Intercommunity Projects
The RAISE grant, which funds the YATC planning project, includes funds dedicated toward design and pre-construction work on two corridors, bringing them closer to completion.

Two intercommunity corridor segments were chosen to advance into the design phase:

Madison to Esparto, and Davis to Woodland. They were selected based on performance against the project’s prioritization criteria, input received by community and technical advisory committee members over the two outreach phases, and available budget. The design will allow the corridors to be developed to a level of completion that positions them for external competitive grant construction funds. The remaining projects from the YATC Prioritized Corridors list will be advanced when additional funding becomes available.

The YATC regional active transportation network is augmented by two in-progress projects that are being funded separately and managed by other local agencies: the Clarksburg Branch Trail Line Extension and the I-505 bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing.

The City of Winters, Yolo County, and Caltrans District 3 are working together to create an active transportation connection between El Rio Villa and Winters, via a planned multi-use path and pedestrian bridge along the south side of the existing I-505 overpass along Russell Boulevard. This facility will improve crossing safety for pedestrians and cyclists and especially benefit the low-income residents of El Rio Villa that walk and bike to access Winter’s services.

Similarly, the City of West Sacramento is in the design phase for the 6.4 mile Clarksburg Branch Line Trail (CBLT) extension that will provide a key link within the Great California Delta Trail and SACOG’s Sacramento Regional Trail Network. Design of this segment of the CBLT is another step toward achieving the vision of a connected recreational corridor that is decades in the making and will be enjoyed by current and future generations. The project is currently in the environmental clearance process, which will continue through 2026.

Design is anticipated from summer 2025 to fall 2026.

The map below illustrates the locations and boundaries of the four YATC segments currently in progress.

Phase 1 Projects: Summary Map
Phase 1 Projects: Summary Map

Phase 1 Projects: Summary Funding Table

Phase 1 Segment Segment Phase Status Cost Funding
Committed
Funding Source
Esparto – Madison Non-Construction In Progress $334,700 $334,700 Federal RAISE Grant Construction Not Started $5,600,000 $0 TBD
Woodland - Davis Non-Construction In Progress $623,000 $623,000 Federal RAISE Grant Construction Not Started $14,600,000 $0 TBD
Grant Ave/I-505
Overcrossing
Non-Construction In Progress $2,000,000 $609,000 SACOG Regional Funding
Construction Not Started $20,000,000 $0 TBD
Clarksburg Branch Line
Trail
Non-Construction In Progress $2,150,000 $2,150,000 SACOG Carbon Reduction Program
Grant
Construction Not Started $9,500,000 $0 TBD

Phase 1 Projects: Financial Status Summary

YATC Implementation Progress
Winter Spring Summer Fall W S S F W S S F W S S F W S S FPA&EDRight-of-WayUnfundedPS&EConstructionUnfundedPA&EDRight-of-WayUnfundedPS&EConstructionUnfundedPA&EDRight-of-WayUnfunded TCDPS&EUnfunded TCDConstructionUnfunded TCDPA&ED (complete)CompleteRight-of-WayPS&EConstructionUnfunded TCDTCD = Target Completion Date2030FundedClarksburg Branch Line TrailGrant Ave / I-505 OvercrossingWoodland-DavisEsparto-MadisonFundedProject PhaseYATC Segment2029FundedFundedFunded2026 2027 2028FundedFunded

Madison-Esparto Segment
Project Description: Three-mile Class I trail on County Road 21A / State Route 16 (SR-16) between Esparto Middle School (in Esparto) and Scott Street (in Madison).

This 3.0-mile shared-use path originates in Esparto at County Road 87 and ends in Madison at County Road 89. Currently, the only connection between the two interdependent communities is SR-16, a high-speed road not suitable for travel for vulnerable road users. Construction of a shared-use path would provide a dedicated, separated, and more comfortable facility for those who wish to walk, bike, and roll between Madison and Esparto, addressing the need, as expressed during community engagement, for a safer and more direct connection.

Project Need: The Madison–Esparto alignment seeks to address gaps along SR-16 while providing safe access for students to travel from Madison – including Yolo County Housing Authority’s migrant farmworker housing - to Esparto and back. This path will serve residents traveling to schools, local businesses, community centers, and parks, while providing a dedicated bicycle facility as an alternative to motorized vehicle travel.

Sponsoring Agency: Yolo Transportation District / Yolo County

Status: Non-Construction work in progress

Funding Needed: $5.6 - $6.0 million

Target Funding Sources:
 Federal:

Figure 1: Madison - Esparto Project Alignment

o Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Program o Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment (ATIIP) Program o Rural Surface Transportation Program
 State:
o 2026 Funding Priority: California State ATP Funding Program o Recreational Trails Program
o Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
o Low Carbon Transportation Options Program
o Community Air Protection Incentives Program
o Sustainable Transportation Equity Project
 Regional:
o 2026 Funding Priority: Regional ATP Funding Program
o Carbon Reduction Program

Target Completion Date: TBD

Figure 2: CA-16 Westbound Existing Condition

Figure 4: Conceptual Rendering
Figure 3: CA-16 Enhanced Conceptual Rendering

Woodland-Davis Segment

Project Description: 5.5-mile shared-use
path on County Road 102 between Bronze
Star Road and East Covell Boulevard

This 5.5-mile shared-use path will start on
East Covell Boulevard in Davis and be
routed north alongside County Road 102
and either continue to County Road 25 or
turn left onto County Road 27, and finally
onto County Road 101, ending at County
Road 25A in Woodland. County Road 102
was the site of several crashes involving
bicyclists within the study period (2018 –
2022). By constructing an off-street path,
the project not only provides a facility
specifically for active travel, but it also
creates a spatial separation that
significantly reduces collision risk for
vulnerable users commuting between the
two cities.

Project Need: The Davis to Woodland
alignment will create continuous
connectivity between the two cities, linking
off-street shared-use paths on both ends for
safe bike commuting. The facility will
support commuters, students, and families
by providing a dedicated bicycle facility as
an alternative to motorized vehicle travel.

Sponsoring Agency: Yolo Transportation
District / Yolo County

Status: Non-Construction work in progress

Funding Needed: ~$14.6 - $15.0 million

Target Funding Sources:
 Federal:
o Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Program o Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment (ATIIP) Program o Rural Surface Transportation Program
Figure 3: Woodland - Davis Project Alignments

 State:
o California State ATP Funding Program
o Recreational Trails Program
o Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
o Low Carbon Transportation Options Program
o Community Air Protection Incentives Program
o Sustainable Transportation Equity Project
 Regional:
o Regional ATP Funding Program
o Carbon Reduction Program

Target Completion Date: TBD

Figure 6: County Road 102 Northbound Existing Conditions Figure 7: Conceptual Rendering

Grant Avenue / I-505 Overcrossing

Project Description: 1.3-mile bicycle and pedestrian improvements from the intersection of Morgan Street and Grant Avenue/SR-128 in Winters to Russell Boulevard/County Road 32 and Fredericks Drive in unincorporated Yolo County.

The City of Winters, Yolo County, and Caltrans District 3 are collaborating to create an active transportation connection between Winters and El Rio Villa, by way of a planned multi-use path and pedestrian bridge along the south side of the existing I-505 overpass along Russell Boulevard. This facility will improve crossing safety for pedestrians and cyclists and especially benefit the low-income residents of El Rio Villa that walk and bike to access Winter’s services.

Project Need: The purpose of the project is to provide a dedicated pedestrian and bicycle facility across I-505 connecting Yolo County Housing Authority El Rio Villa affordable housing residences east of the freeway with schools and businesses on Main Street.

Residents must currently walk or bike along a high-speed state highway, including crossing a narrow, antiquated freeway overpass to access daily needs. The project would also provide part of a regional bicycle trail connecting the City of Winters with areas of Yolo County and the City of Davis.

Sponsoring Agencies: Yolo County, Caltrans District 3

Status: Non-Construction work in progress

Funding Needed: ~$22.0 million

Target Funding Sources:
 Federal:
o Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Program Figure 8: Grant Ave / I-505 Overcrossing Alignment

o Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment (ATIIP) Program o Rural Surface Transportation Program
 State:
o 2026 Funding Priority: California State ATP Funding Program o Recreational Trails Program
o Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
o Low Carbon Transportation Options Program
o Community Air Protection Incentives Program
o Sustainable Transportation Equity Project
 Regional:
o 2026 Funding Priority: Regional ATP Funding Program
o Carbon Reduction Program

Target Completion Date: 2030

Figure 9: Grant Ave / I-505 Overcrossing Existing Conditions

Clarksburg Branch Line Trail Extension

Project Description: 7.5 mile Class I trail from the southern limits of West Sacramento along South River Road and the former railway right-of way, continue south to Willow Point Road and west to Clarksburg, with a proposed trailhead near the Old Sugar Mill.

The Clarksburg Branch Line Trail Extension is a planned 7.5-mile shared-use trail intended to connect West Sacramento with Clarksburg and serve as a key link within the Great California Delta Trail and SACOG’s Sacramento Regional Trail Network. It will feature parallel paved and unpaved paths to better serve bicyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians.

This trail is currently in the design phase and led by the City of West Sacramento, in partnership with Yolo County, Delta Protection Commission, and YoloTD, with funding from SACOG.

Project Need: Project will 1) promote connectivity between neighborhoods and communities by constructing a multi-use trail serving bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian users, while respecting agricultural uses; 2) create opportunities that connect communities and encourage active transportation; 3) provide educational opportunities through elements such as interpretive signs that reflect local rail and settlement history, share facts about local agriculture, honor Indigenous peoples, and encourage habitat conservation; and 4) Promote economic activity by attracting recreational cyclists.

Sponsoring Agency: City of West Sacramento
Figure 10: Bike/Ped Overcrossing Conceptual Rendering

Status: Non-construction work in-progress

Funding Needed: $10.0 - $12.0 million

Target Funding Sources:
 Federal:
o Better Utilizing Investments to
Leverage Development
(BUILD) Program
o Active Transportation
Infrastructure Investment
(ATIIP) Program
o Rural Surface Transportation
Program
 State:
o California State ATP Funding
Program
o Recreational Trails Program
o Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP)
o Low Carbon Transportation
Options Program
o Community Air Protection
Incentives Program
o Sustainable Transportation
Equity Project
 Regional:
o Regional ATP Funding Program
o Carbon Reduction Program

Target Completion Date: 2027
Figure 4: Clarksburg Branch Line Trail Extension Alignment Figure 11: Clarksburg Branch Line Trail Alignment

Phase 2 Intercommunity Projects Priorities
With substantial unmet funding needs and time required for design and construction, Phase 1 intercommunity projects will require a significant amount of time to complete through construction. Nonetheless, horizon planning is appropriate for Yolo County residents to anticipate subsequent YATC segments for implementation. The map below illustrates anticipated Phase 2 projects and their general alignments.

Figure 62: CBLT Extension Right of Way Northbound @ Pumphouse Road Figure 6: Conceptual Rendering

Phase 2 Projects: Summary Map

West Sacramento – Davis: County Road 32A
The YATC segment between West Sacramento and Davis is important for commuting between Davis / UC Davis and Sacramento. Over 100 bicyclists currently travel this corridor during daylight hours on a peak travel day. A 1.8 mile high-stress segment exists on County Road 32A between the westbound I-80 off-/on-ramps and County Road 105 where bicycle commuters must ride on a four-foot shoulder immediately adjacent to high- speed vehicles, including large tractor trailers and heavy-duty waste removal vehicles.

The County Road 105 / 32A intersection is also a location with high motor vehicle collisions and train / vehicle collisions due to high speeds and a ninety-degree northbound/eastbound movement onto/from County Road 105 at an at-grade crossing.

For safety reasons, the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) expressed a desire to close the at- grade crossing, making County Road 32A inaccessible to motor vehicles. Maintaining a County Road 32A railroad crossing provides a critical route for over-sized farm equipment to access land north and south of I-80, for bicycle access between Davis and

Sacramento, and for waste hauling to the Yolo County landfill originating from West Sacramento.

In the recent past, Yolo County spearheaded a study in partnership with the City of Davis, UPRR, Bike Davis, the California Public Utilities Commission, Yolo County Farm Bureau, and SACOG to consider a relocation of the existing railroad crossing to improve safety and address the conflicts experienced between trains, vehicles, and bicycles. Alternatives under consideration include at-grade crossings further east or an overcrossing / bridge.

Two of the alternatives would result in repurposing the western half of County Road 32A into a Class I facility. This facility would then connect with Caltrans’ expected realignment of the Causeway Class I bike path to the westbound I-80 off-/on-ramps and the existing Old US-40 Class I facility, providing a continuous off-street facility for bicyclists.

If the County Road 32A realignment project is not feasible or experiences a substantial delay, a separate Class I path on the current County Road 32A alignment could be explored as a feasible alternative on which to focus for a Phase 2 YATC implementation project.

Figure 7: West Sacramento - Davis Alignment

Figure 15: County Road 32A Existing Conditions
Figure 8: Conceptual Rendering

Winters – Davis
The Russell Boulevard bike path on the western edge of Davis is one of a few separated active transportation facilities in unincorporated Yolo County. This path is popular among recreational cyclists, who commonly take leisurely rides from Davis to Winters. The path extends as far as Stevenson Bridge Road at which point bicyclists head south and then back west on Putah Creek Road, entering downtown Winters via the converted railroad bridge crossing Putah Creek.

YATC aims to extend the existing path into Winters either by continuing along Russell Boulevard, connecting with the planned Grant Avenue / I-505 Overcrossing project or, alternatively, along the north bank of Putah Creek, connecting with the existing trail in Winters which terminates at Creekside Way.

Figure 97: Winters - Davis Alignment

Figure 108: Russell Blvd @ Stevenson Bridge Road Existing Conditions Figure 119: Conceptual Rendering

Woodland – Madison
This project would connect Woodland with Madison via SR-16 between County Road 98 and County Road 89. The result would be a 12+ mile fully separated Class I active transportation facility between Woodland and Esparto when combined with the Madison- Esparto Phase 1 priority project.

Figure 20: Woodland - Madison Alignment
Figure 21: SR-16 Eastbound Approaching County Road 98 Existing Conditions

Intracommunity Improvements
In addition to intercommunity connections, the YATC Plan also recommended targeted active transportation safety and infrastructure improvements in the nine unincorporated Yolo County communities (intracommunity improvements). These recommendations address the highest priority needs for safe street crossings, lighting, and access to schools and amenities.

Intracommunity improvements recommendations are primarily on local routes and not eligible for federal funding. Yolo County and, in some cases, Caltrans are the agencies responsible for constructing these improvements. With scarce funding for maintaining existing infrastructure, this implementation strategy does not attempt to prioritize or otherwise commit Yolo County to funding intracommunity improvements. However, the YATC Plan can be considered a resource for Yolo County staff when considering capital improvement projects in these areas and for other traffic and safety planning needs.

Opportunities may exist for Yolo County to cost-efficiently bundle YATC’s recommended intracommunity improvements with other county projects including road rehabilitation within the unincorporated communities. Other funding opportunities may exist including federal and state safe routes to school-type programs, HSIP, or leveraging intracommunity improvement needs when Caltrans designs for improvements on state highways that serve as local “main streets” in the unincorporated communities.

Figure 22: Conceptual Rendering

Conclusion
The Yolo Active Transportation Corridors (YATC) Implementation Strategy translates an ambitious regional vision into a practical, phased path forward. Across the document, several consistent themes emerge: the importance of persistence in long-term delivery, the need for strong interagency partnerships, the central role of competitive funding readiness, and the clear community demand for safer, more connected active transportation options. Together, these themes underscore that successful implementation will depend not on any single project, but on sustained, coordinated progress over time.

Phase 1 efforts demonstrate meaningful momentum. Advancing the Madison–Esparto and Woodland–Davis segments through design, while supporting complementary projects such as the Grant Avenue/I-505 Overcrossing and Clarksburg Branch Line Trail Extension, positions YATC to compete effectively for future construction funding. These early investments reflect the strategy’s core premise: projects must be brought to a high level of readiness—often through largely invisible pre-construction work—before major capital funding can be secured.

At the same time, the strategy recognizes that implementation conditions are complex.

Limited local match capacity, ongoing maintenance responsibilities, agricultural interface considerations, and the need for continued stakeholder engagement all shape the pace of delivery. The document consistently emphasizes proactive coordination with Yolo County, Caltrans, cities, and community partners as essential to navigating these realities and identifying opportunities to bundle trail delivery with roadway, safety, or rehabilitation projects.

Looking ahead, Phase 2 corridors and intracommunity improvements ensure the vision remains forward-focused and countywide in scope. By maintaining a prioritized pipeline of projects, updating progress annually, and building on early successes, YoloTD and its partners can sustain enthusiasm and keep YATC competitive among regional transportation priorities.

Maintaining Focus
Interagency coordination and collaboration should be formalized between YoloTD and project partners such as Yolo County, the City of West Sacramento, and Caltrans District

3. YoloTD can host regular coordination meetings for partners to share experiences, insights, projects status, and partnership and funding opportunities. As new projects surface, the coordination group can expand as needed.

Annual updates to both the YoloTD and Yolo County Board of Supervisors can be assumed, with more frequent updates provided as needed to the YoloTD Citizens Advisory Committee and Yolo County Transportation Advisory Committee and/or Climate

Action Commission.

Ultimately, YATC is both a transportation investment and a quality-of-life initiative. With continued leadership, strategic funding pursuit, and strong partnerships, the county can steadily transform today’s conceptual network into a connected system that improves safety, expands mobility choices, supports local economies, and enhances the everyday experience of traveling between Yolo County communities.

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA: City Council Regular Meeting
DATE: April 7, 2026
ITEM #: G.21
SUBJECT: SB707 Policy Relating to Disruption of Remote
Access Services During Public Meetings

Recommendation for Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. ___, approving a policy relating to disruption of remote access services during public meetings.

Staff Contact:

Marissa Kersey, City Clerk, (530) 661-5806, [email protected]

Fiscal Impact:

There is no financial impact associated with the approval and adoption of the policy.

Background:

In October 2025, Governor Newsom signed into law SB707 which made numerous additions and changes to the Ralph M. Brown Act aimed at increasing accessibility to public meetings. The requirements go into effect in two phases, with some provisions already in place as of January 1, 2026, and the remaining will begin on July 1, 2026.

As of January 1st, the City has complied with the Act by distributing copies of the Brown Act to all elected or appointed officials, created a list of teleconference meeting locations in the City, and has initiated efforts to invite members of the public who do not traditionally participate in public meetings.

Additional new requirements include allowing for translation or interpretation at City Council meetings, including providing closed captioning for remote participants; expanding and clarifying the rules relating to teleconferencing for legislative bodies; and, removing the sunset provision for social media communication rules.

Beginning July 1st, the City will need to fully implement the following changes:

1. Establish a two-way telephonic or audio-visual platform that allows for remote public participation in meetings of the City Council.

2. Translate and publish City Council agendas into Spanish.

3. Provide a publicly accessible posting board where members of the public can post their own translation of the published agenda.

4. Update the City's website to include all newly required meeting information accessible via a prominent link on the City's main webpage.

5. Adopt a policy establishing procedures in case of a disruption in service for remote participation, which is the recommended action associated with this staff report.

The requirements for July 1st are mandated for the City Council and will not be required for subsidiary bodies, such as the City’s boards and commissions. There are some limited exceptions to the remote public participation rules that can be found in Government Code Section 54953.4, such as emergency meetings, administrative hearings, and inspecting real property.

Discussion:

To prepare for July 1st, City staff have established a plan to provide remote public participation at City Council meetings via the Zoom platform. To fully implement this platform, there are some minor upgrades being made to the current AV system in the Council Chambers that will improve the City's ability to run the remote portion of the meeting simultaneously and as seamlessly as possible. The public will be provided with a link as well as a phone number to join the Zoom City Council meetings.

Instructions on how to join the meetings remotely will be included in the published agendas as well as on the public meeting page on the City's website.

In addition to providing remote participation, SB707 also requires that the Council adopt in open session a policy outlining the procedures for Council and Staff in the event that the City's remote access service (Zoom) is disrupted, such as for internet connection issues or other technical difficulties. Attached to this report is a proposed policy that incorporates the mandated procedures provided for in the Brown Act.

In summary, the policy establishes that, if the remote access service is disrupted during a City Council meeting, the Council must recess for at least one hour or until the service is restored, whichever is earlier. During the recess, Staff must make reasonable efforts to restore the service. If the service is not restored after the required recess period, the Council may resume the meeting if a finding is made that good faith efforts to restore the service were made and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote access. The Council also has the option to adjourn the meeting.

Staff is requesting that the Council approve and adopt this policy to ensure compliance ahead of the July 1st deadline.

Conclusion:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. ___, approving a policy relating to disruption of remote access services during public meetings.

Attachments:

1. SB707 Policy on Technology Disruptions

2. Proposed Resolution - SB707 Policy

POLICY

Policy No: 12-103 Effective Date: April 7, 2026
Division: City Clerk Distribution: All Departments
Related Policies: Last Revision:

SUBJECT: DISRUPTION OF REMOTE ACCESS SERVICES DURING

PUBLIC MEETINGS
I. PURPOSE
Senate Bill 707 (2025) amended the Brown Act to require that meetings of eligible legislative bodies be accessible to the public via a two-way telephonic service or two-way audiovisual platform. As a City Council of a city with a population of 30,000 or more, the City Council of the City of Woodland qualifies as an eligible legislative body. Pursuant to Senate Bill 707, the Brown Act now requires that a policy be adopted, on or before July 1, 2026, that addresses procedures for recessing and reconvening a public meeting in the event of a disruption of remote access services. This policy is adopted to comply with that requirement and to ensure continuity of public participation during technical disruptions.

II. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this policy:
 “Eligible legislative body” means the City Council of the City of Woodland.  “Remote access services” mean either: (1) a two-way telephonic service; and/or (2) a two- way audiovisual platform used to provide real-time remote public attendance and observation of public meetings.
 “Disrupted service” means any failure, outage, or other interruption that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via remote access services.

III. APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to all open and public meetings of the City Council of the City of Woodland where remote access services are required under the Brown Act.

This policy covers disruptions in service for the two-way telephonic or two-way audiovisual platforms only. The City may provide additional broadcast streams of the meeting through third-party platforms (such as on the City’s website). These streams are provided as a convenience to the public and are not considered the City’s official remote access service for purposes of this policy. A disruption of a third-party stream alone shall not constitute a disruption of remote access services.

APPROVALS
City Clerk City Manager

IV. PROCEDURES IN THE EVENT OF DISRUPTED SERVICE
Response to Disrupted Service
If, during a public meeting of the City Council, the Presiding Officer or City Clerk becomes aware of a disruption to the City’s remote access services that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting remotely, the following actions shall be taken:

1. The Presiding Officer or Clerk shall immediately announce the disrupted service to the public.

2. The Presiding Officer shall call for a recess of the open session. Staff shall begin efforts to restore the disrupted service.

3. During the recess of the open session, the Presiding Officer may decide to convene the legislative body in closed session, consistent with the Brown Act. The Presiding Officer may decide to do so if efforts to restore the disrupted service are significant.

4. The recess of the open session of the public meeting shall last for at least one hour or until service is restored, whichever is sooner.

Efforts to Restore Service
City staff shall make good faith efforts to restore remote access services, which may include:
 Troubleshooting the remote access platform or teleconferencing software  Resetting or replacing audiovisual equipment
 Attempting alternative connection methods
 Contacting necessary support staff or service providers  Switching to back-up equipment or platforms, if available The City Clerk shall document the restoration efforts taken.

V. RECONVENING THE OPEN SESSION
Timing
The open session may be reconvened after at least one hour has elapsed from the time of the announcement of its recess, or as soon as remote access services are restored, whichever occurs earlier.

If Remote Access Services Are Restored
If the remote access services are restored within one hour of the announcement of recess, the open session shall be reconvened and the public meeting shall proceed.

If Remote Access Services Are Not Restored
If remote access services have not been restored after one hour of the announcement of the recess, the City Council shall reconvene and either:

1. Adjourn the meeting; or

2. Continue the meeting in open session by adopting by roll call vote the following, or a substantially similar, finding:
“The City of Woodland has made good faith efforts to restore remote access services in accordance with its adopted policy, and the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.”

Upon adoption of the finding, the City Council may continue the open session even though remote access services have not been restored.

VI. RECORDKEEPING
The Clerk shall enter a brief statement into the meeting minutes, including the following:
 The nature and time of the disruption
 The call for recess of the open session
 The call for entering closed session (if applicable)
 The efforts taken to restore disrupted service
 The time the meeting was reconvened
 The finding adopted to either (1) continue the open session of the meeting because remote access services have been restored; or (2) adjourn the meeting, and the time of adjournment, if remote access services have not been restored; or (3) continue the meeting even though remote access services have not been restored.

VII. REVIEW AND UPDATES
This policy may be amended by the City Council at a noticed public meeting in open session. This policy may not be adopted or amended on the consent calendar.

RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOODLAND

APPROVING A POLICY RELATING TO DISRUPTION OF REMOTE ACCESS

SERVICES DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

WHEREAS, In October 2025, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 707 (SB707) which made numerous additions and changes to the Ralph M. Brown Act; and WHEREAS, Beginning July 1, 2026, the meetings of the City Council will need to be accessible via a two-way telephonic or audio-visual platform; and WHEREAS, The Council is required by a new provisions of the Brown Act to adopt a policy establishing procedures in case of a disruption in service for remote participation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodland as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Disruption of Remote Access Services During Public Meetings Policy, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by this reference.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Woodland at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of April 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Tom Stallard, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ ________________________________ Marissa Kersey, City Clerk Ethan Walsh, City Attorney