City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, March 22, 2022 @ 6:00 PM
PLEASE NOTE: Any person who wishes to speak regarding an item on the agenda or make a comment under the "Oral Communication" portion of the agenda may do so, but please observe the time limit of four minutes.
This meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 54953 (as amended by AB 361) which authorizes teleconferenced meetings under the Brown Act during certain proclaimed States of Emergency. The Governor of California proclaimed a State of Emergency related to COVID-19 on March 4, 2020. This teleconferenced meeting is necessary so that the City can conduct essential business and is permitted under Government Code 54953 in order to protect public health and safety of attendees.
Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this City Council Meeting will be held via teleconference only, and will not be physically open to the public. City Council members and staff will teleconference into the meeting by audio and/or video. The meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar.
The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on Comcast Channel 28 and on the City’s website, barring technical difficulties. Those members of the public wishing to participate must do so remotely via Zoom electronic meetings in the following ways; by either logging onto the Zoom link located on the meeting agenda (please download the app to your computer or mobile device) and enter the meeting ID or by calling a listed number and enter the meeting ID. Public comment for City Council meetings will be accepted via email to [email protected]. All public comments must be emailed by 4:00 PM prior to the meeting. Emailed public comments will not be read out loud but will be publicly available and attached to the on-line City Council agenda.
NEW FEATURE FOR ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC COMMENT VIA TELEPHONE BY RESERVATION If you would like to provide comments via telephone (not using Zoom) during the Council meeting, you can request a reservation from the City Clerk prior to 12:00 p.m. on the meeting day. The reservation request may be submitted to the City Clerk by emailing [email protected], or by calling (707) 968-2752. When submitting the request, please identify your name, your telephone number (including the area code first), and the agenda item number you would like to comment on. During the Council meeting, a representative from the City Clerk’s Office will call you when public comment is called for the requested item. You will then be able to provide your comments to the Council via telephone.
Please see the end of the agenda for detailed PUBLIC PARTICIPATION instructions.
Spanish translation for this meeting will be offered. To access Spanish translation, you will need to join the meeting using the Zoom app from a computer, iPad or iPhone. You will see an icon on the screen that will allow you to choose Spanish translation. To learn how to use Zoom, please see the instructions below.
Please click the link below to join the meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84908727709
Or One tap mobile :
US: +16699006833,,84908727709# or +13462487799,,84908727709# Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099
Meeting ID: 849 0872 7709
International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kWROjiKL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Esta reunión será realizada conforme a las provisiones del Código de Gobierno Sección 54953 (modificada por AB 361) la cual autoriza las reuniones de teleconferencia bajo el Acta Brown durante ciertos Estados de Emergencia. El gobernador de California proclamó Estado de Emergencia relacionado con el COVID-19 el 4 de marzo del 2020. Esta reunión por teleconferencia es necesaria para que la Ciudad pueda realizar deberes esenciales y es permitido bajo el Código de Gobierno 54953 en orden de proteger la salud pública y seguridad de los asistentes.
Consistente con el Código de Gobierno Sección 54953, esta reunión del Consejo de la Cuidad será realizada vía teleconferencia y no será físicamente abierta al público. Miembros del Consejo de la Cuidad y personal atenderán la reunión por audio y/ o video. La reunión será transmitida vía Zoom.
La reunión del Consejo de la Cuidad se transmitirá en vivo por el Canal 28 de Comcast y en el sitio web de la Ciudad, salvo dificultades técnicas. Aquellos miembros del público que deseen participar deben hacerlo de forma virtual a través de las reuniones electrónicas de Zoom de las siguientes maneras; iniciando sesión en el enlace Zoom ubicado en la agenda de la reunión (descargue la aplicación en su computadora o dispositivo móvil) e ingrese el ID de la reunión o llamando al número ubicado en la agenda e ingrese el ID de la reunión. Se aceptarán comentarios públicos para la reunión del Consejo de la Cuidad por correo electrónico a [email protected]. Todos los comentarios públicos se harán públicos y se adjuntarán a la agenda, pero no se leerán en voz alta. Todos los comentarios públicos que se reciban después de las 4:00 PM se adjuntarán a la agenda del Consejo de la Cuidad al día siguiente.
Consulte el final de la agenda para obtener instrucciones detalladas de PARTICIPACIÓN PÚBLICA.
Se ofrecerá traducción al español para esta reunión. Para acceder a la traducción al español, deberá unirse a la reunión utilizando la aplicación Zoom desde una computadora, iPad o iPhone. Verá un icono en la pantalla que le permitirá elegir la traducción al español. Para aprender como utilizar Zoom, consulte las instrucciones a continuación.
Habrá traducción en español durante la junta
Haga clic en el enlace a continuación para participar en la reunión:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84908727709
O por iPhone one-tap:
US: +16699006833,,84908727709# or +13462487799,,84908727709# O por Teléfono: Marque(para mejor calidad, marque número basado en su ubicaciónactual):
US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799
ID de la Reunión: ID:849 0872 7709
International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kWROjiKL Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Estimated start time: 6:02 p.m.
3. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Estimated start time: 6:05 p.m.
4. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Geoff Ellsworth, Vice Mayor: Paul Dohring, City Council Members: Anna Chouteau, Eric Hall and Lester Hardy
Estimated start time: 6:08 p.m.
5. PUBLIC FORUM:
Members of the public are entitled to speak on matters of municipal concern not on the agenda during Public Forum. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes. Each person is entitled to speak on any non-agendized item only once at any meeting. Brief questions by Council Members for clarifications may be posed and answered, and Council Members may make requests that items be placed on future agendas, but in accordance with state law, no substantive discussion or action may take place unless and until the matter properly appears on the agenda.
Estimated start time: 6:10 p.m.
5.1. Public Comment.LC Arisman 17 - 18
6. REPORTS BY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, AND AB 1234 REPORTS:
Reports by staff and/or Council Members on items of general interest. Brief questions for clarification may be posed and answered, and Council Members may request that items be placed on a future agenda. Except under certain circumstances, the Brown Act prohibits any other discussion or action by the City Council.
Estimated start time: 6:20 p.m.
7. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS
7.1. National Library Week Proclamation presented to St. Helena Library Staff Lynne Albrecht , Mariah McGuire and Cecilia Raffo Estimated start time: 6:30 p.m.
19
National-Library-Week Proclamation 2022
7.2. One Bay Area Grant Cycle 2 (OBAG 2) Program to Address the Calistoga to St. Helena Vine Trail Funding Shortfall Presentation by Kate Miller, NVTA Executive Director
Estimated start time: 6:40 p.m.
Attachment
21 - 22
8. STAFF BRIEFING
8.1. None
9. YOUTH REPRESENTATIVE BRIEFING
9.1. None
10. CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Council or the public may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of considering alternative action, for extended discussion, or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. (Roll Call Vote)
Estimated start time: 7:00 p.m.
10.1. Consideration and proposed approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2022
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Recommendation:
Approve
03-08-2022 Regular City Council - Minutes
23 - 28
10.2. Conduct a Second Reading and Proposed Approval of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 2.76 to Title 2 of the St. Helena Municipal Code Relating to Electronic and Paperless Filing of Campaign Disclosure Statements CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Recommendation:
Introduce first reading and approve by title only and waive further reading.
Staff Report - Pdf
29 - 34
10.3. February 2022 Review and Forecasting of City Water Supply Availability CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Martin Beltran, Management Analyst
Recommendation:
Receive and file.
Staff Report - Pdf
35 - 39
10.4. Adoption of Resolution Making Findings and Determinations under AB 361 for the Continuation of Virtual Meetings.
41 - 45
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Recommendation:
Approve the Attached Resolution Making Findings and Determinations Under AB 361.
Staff Report - Pdf
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
11.1. Ordinance Adding Chapter 17.138 "Time Share Uses" and Sections
17.138.060 to Title 17, Zoning of the St. Helena Municipal Code, amending sections 17.48.030 (Central Business) and 17.52.030 (Service Commercial) and Deleting Section 17.112.130 of the St. Helena Municipal Code
Estimated start time: 7:05 p.m.
CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 17.138 "Time Share Uses" and Sections 17.138.010-17.138.060 to Title 17, Zoning, of the St. Helena Municipal Code, amending sections 17.48 (Central Business) and 17.52 (Service Commercial) and Deleting Section
17.112.130 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.
Staff Report - Pdf
Public Comment.Richard Seiferheld
Public Comment.Clare Barr
Public Comment.Ester Akersloot
Public Comment.Mariam Hansen
Public Comment.Susan McWilliams
Public Comment.Patrick Kenealy
Public Comment.Pat Smidores
Public Comment.M.K.Sims
Public Comment.Philip Norfleet
Public Comment.Rita & Chris Hellewell
Public Comment.Connie Wilson
Public Comment.Leslie Stanton
Public Comment.Nancy Dervin
Public Comment.Alston & Adrian Hayne
Public Comment.Ben Weakley
Public Comment.Colin Wright
Public Comment.Jacqueline Hilger-Rolfe PhD
Public Comment.Mark Schneidman, GRI
Public Comment.Nancy Parrish Brandl
Public Comment.Sherri Kelly
Public Comment.Beth Novak Milliken
Public Comment.Chris Koch
47 - 133
Public Comment.Janis Watkin
Public Comment.Kelly Brophy
Public Comment.Lynda Burton
Public Comment.Mary Ann Souza
Public Comment.Susan Kenward
Public Comment.Andrea Werlin
11.2. Consideration and proposed adoption of the following:
Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project, make the required findings; and Adopt a resolution making specific findings and recommending City Council approve the proposed Mills Lane Storm Drain Improvements Project. *This item was noticed to be heard at the November 9, 2021 regular City Council meeting and was subsequently continued to the December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, January 25, 2022, February 8, 2022, February 22, 2022 and March 8, 2022 regular City Council meetings. This item is being continued again to the April 12, 2022 regular City Council meeting.
12. OLD BUSINESS
12.1. Discussion and Consideration of Recommended Alignment of the Napa Valley Vine Trail Corridor Through the City of St. Helena (Staff report forthcoming Provided 3-17-22)
Estimated start time: 7:35 p.m.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Preya Nixon, Asst. to the City Manager
Recommendation:
Discussion and Consideration of a Preferred Alignment of the Napa Valley Vine Trail Corridor Through the City of St. Helena and Direction to Staff to Communicate Result of Consideration With Napa County and the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition.
Staff Report - Pdf
Public Comment.Andrew Brooks
Public Comment.chuck sheldon
Public Comment.Dr. Jacqueline Hilger-Rolfe and Dr. Mark Rolfe Public Comment.Lee Phillipson
Public Comment.Pat Kenealy
Public Comment.Susan Larsen
Public Comment.Terra Sampson
Public Comment.Tom Pickering
Public Comment.Mike Nieman
Public Comment.Chuck McMinn
Public Comment.Jodie Nieman
Public Comment.Philip Norfleet
Public Comment.Jim and Lili King
135 - 399
Public Comment.Clare and Doug Barr
Public Comment.Colleen Buckley
Public Comment.Dan Lynch
Public Comment.Garen K. Staglin
Public Comment.Kim Phinney
Public Comment.Pat Dell
Public Comment.Rick and Elaine Jones
Public Comment.David Meyers
Public Comment.David Wight
Public Comment.Fritz Hatton
Public Comment.Jim Gamble
Public Comment.Kara Vernor
Public Comment.Kimberly Meredith
Public Comment.Leslie Stanton Pic
Public Comment.Leslie Stanton
Public Comment.Matthew Francois
Public Comment.Nancy Dervin
Public Comment.Paul De Martini
Public Comment.Charlie Crocker
Public Comment.Barbara Nemko
Public Comment.Grace Kistner
Public Comment.Jack Oliver
Public Comment.Jenifer Krenz
Public Comment.Latife Hayson
Public Comment.Pim and Maryam Dubbeldam
Public Comment.Steven Kinney
Public Comment.Christopher Cole
Public Comment.Friends of the Napa River, Inc.
Public Comment.Gary Fisch
Public Comment.Kellie Macway
Public Comment.Ron Arata
Public Comment.Tom Belt
Public Comment.Valerie Presten
City Attorney Responses to March 21 2022 Safeway Letter FINAL-c1 Public comment.Pam Smithers
Public comment.Paul Pelosi
13. NEW BUSINESS
13.1. Consideration and recommended approval of:
1. Resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement with Raftelis Financial Consultants to provide services associated with a Water and Wastewater Rate Study for a total not to exceed amount of $146,310 and a budget increase to 561-43-00-21-45 in the amount of $73,155 utilizing water enterprise fund balance and a budget increase to 571-43-00-21-45 in the amount of $73,155 utilizing wastewater enterprise fund balance; and
2. Provide preliminary direction on rate study approach Estimated start time: 8:35 p.m.
401 - 489
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Asst. Administrative Services Director Recommendation:
Adopt the attached resolution and provide preliminary Council direction on certain aspects of the rate study approach.
Staff Report - Pdf
14. ITEMS LIKELY TO BE PLACED ON THE NEXT OR FUTURE MEETING AGENDA:
14.1. April City Council Meetings:
4/12 (Staff reports due 3/25)
4/26 (Staff reports due 4/8)
Presentation
4/12 2022 Sexual Assault Awareness Month Proclamation
4/26 Healthcare workers Proclamation
5/10 May as Preservation Month
CONSENT:
4/12 PSA with Artemis Habitat for Invasive Species Management for the Upper York Creek
4/12 Award of Contract for MarinIT for IT improvements at the NVC
4/26 Quarterly Grant Report FY22 3RD Quarter
PH or OLD / NEW BUSINESS:
4/12 Review and Feedback of Scope for new Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee
4/12 Consideration and Proposed Approval of a Resolution adding a Utility Manager Position to Oversee both Water and Wastewater Operation Plants Public Works - Water/Wastewater Treatment Plants OB 4/12 Water Penalty Discussion
OB 4/12 Financial Policy Update
4/26 formula business policy
15. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for April 12, 2022, at 6:00 p.m.
I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on the City website on March 16, 2022.
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s Office (707) 967-2792. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by
Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES
The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City of St. Helena is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision, including without limitation Government Code section 65009 applicable to many land use and zoning decisions, Government Code section 66499.37 applicable to the Subdivision Map Act, and Public Resources Code section 21167 applicable to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred.
Government Code section 65009 and 66499.37, and Public Resources Code section 21167, impose shorter limitations periods and requirements, including timely service in addition to filing.
If a person wishes to challenge the above actions in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of St.
Helena, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 1572 Railroad Avenue, St. Helena, California, during normal business hours and by appointment. In addition, such writings or documents will be made available on the City’s web site at https://sthelena.civicweb.net and will be available for public review at the respective meeting.
THE CITY OF ST. HELENA ENCOURAGES ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
VIRTUAL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
St. Helena, CA– The City of St. Helena is committed to public participation in City government in a manner that is consistent with guidance provided by the Napa County Public Health Official and AB361. These guidelines relate to social distancing, and are intended to protect everyone by limiting the spread of COVID-19 in our community. In adherence to these guidelines, the St.
Helena City Council will host a Virtual Council Meeting on Zoom; a free teleconferencing tool that enables users to watch and/or call into the meeting from their computers or phones. This meeting will be open to public and allows for live public comment. The meeting will also be recorded, livestreamed, and posted on the City’s website after the adjournment of the meeting if technical difficulties occur: https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/ The ZOOM web link, meeting ID, and phone number will be listed at the top of the City Council Meeting Agenda. You will be required to enter the meeting ID, but there will be no password or participant ID.
How to Watch or Listen to Council Meetings:
1. Watch on Comcast Channel 28
2. Watch the livestreaming video on the City’s website
3. Watch and Listen on Zoom.us by clicking on the link in the Council Agenda
4. Listen only by calling the Zoom number listed on the Council Agenda Watch Council Meeting by Joining the Zoom Meeting:
1. By Computer, Tablet, or Smart Phone:
1. Before joining the virtual City Council Meeting, it is highly encouraged that you download the Zoom App. To sign up for your own free account, visit zoom.us/signup and enter your email address. You will receive an email from Zoom ([email protected]). In this email, click Activate Account.
2. If you are logged into your account, Enter the Meeting ID listed on the City Council Agenda.
If you have not created an account go to: https://zoom.us/join and enter the Meeting ID
3. Select if you would like to connect audio and/or video and tap Join Meeting.
4. For specific instructions for your device, go to: https://support.zoom.us/hc/enus/articles/201362193-Joining-a-Meeting
1. Listen Only by Telephone:
1. Dial the number listed on the Council Agenda.
2. At the prompt, enter the Meeting ID provided on the top of the City Council Meeting Agenda and Press #. A participate ID is not required.
3. To disconnect from the meeting, hang up the phone.
Ways to Provide Public Comment:
While attending the virtual City Council Meeting, the public will have the opportunity to provide live public comment during Public Forum and after each agenda item. When it is the appropriate time for public comment the Mayor will verbally open public comment. At this time each individual is permitted 4 minutes to speak.
1. Send a Public Comment in by 4:00 PM Prior to the Meeting to:
[email protected]
The easiest way to provide public comment is to email your public comment. Public comments may be emailed to [email protected]. Please include in the subject line “COMMENT TO COUNCIL and the AGENDA ITEM”. Any public comment is required to be submitted no later than 2 hours before the scheduled meeting and will be included as an attachment to the agenda. All public comments will be made publicly available and attached to the agenda item and will not be read out loud. All public comments that are received after 4:00 PM will be attached to the agenda the following day.
2. Provide Comment through Zoom meeting from a computer, tablet, or smart phone This option allows the public to virtually attend the meeting as a muted ‘attendee’ with no video or screen sharing capabilities. You will be able to see and hear those participating in the meeting, but they will not be able to hear you until the host unmutes you.
If you wish to provide public comment during a specific agenda item or during public forum, you can use the “raise hand” feature located in the control panel at the bottom of your screen. The icon is a small blue hand. In Windows you can also use the Alt+Y keyboard shortcut to raise or lower your hand. In Mac you can also use the Option+Y keyboard shortcut to raise or lower your hand.
The host will be notified that you've raised your hand and you will be placed in a queue with all incoming requests.
When it is your turn to speak, you will be notified that the host has unmuted you. To be removed from the queue, just click the ‘raise hand’ button again.
3. Call in to the ZOOM meeting from a cell phone or landline phone only This option allows the member of the public with the opportunity to verbally participate in public comment.
If you wish to speak during public comment time dial *9 on your telephone.
The host will be notified that you would like to speak and you will be placed in a queue with all incoming requests.
When it is your turn to speak, you will be notified that the host has unmuted you. You may press *9 again if you wish to be removed from the queue.
You will be notified at the end of your statement that you have been muted.
4. Alternative Public Comment Via Telephone by Reservation If you would like to provide comments via telephone (not using Zoom) during the Council meeting, you can request a reservation from the City Clerk prior to 12:00 p.m. on the meeting day. The reservation request may be submitted to the City Clerk by emailing [email protected], or by calling (707) 968-2752. When submitting the request, please identify your name, your telephone number (including the area code first), and the agenda item number you would like to comment on. During the Council meeting, a representative from the City Clerk’s Office will call you when public comment is called for the requested item. You will then be able to provide your comments to the Council via telephone. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ En cumplimiento de la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades, si necesita asistencia especial para participar en esta reunión, llame a la Oficina del Secretaría de la Ciudad (707) 967- 2792. La notificación 72 horas antes de la reunión, como lo requiere la Sección 202 de la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades, permitirá a la Ciudad hacer arreglos razonables para garantizar la accesibilidad a esta reunión.
LA CIUDAD DE ST. HELENA ALIENTA LA PARTICIPACIÓN PÚBLICA EN LÍNEA EN
REUNIONES VIRTUALES DEL CONSEJO DE LA CIUDAD
St. Helena, CA– La Ciudad de St. Helena está comprometida con la participación pública en el gobierno de la Ciudad de manera que sea consistente con la guía proporcionada por el Oficial de Salud Pública del Condado de Napa y la Orden Ejecutiva N-25-20 del Gobernador Newsom. Estas pautas se relacionan con el distanciamiento social y están destinadas a proteger a todos al limitar la propagación de COVID-19 en nuestra comunidad. En cumplimiento de estas pautas, el Ayuntamiento de St. Helena organizará una Reunión del Consejo Virtual sobre Zoom; Una herramienta de teleconferencia gratuita que permite a los usuarios mirar y / o llamar a la reunión desde sus computadoras o teléfonos. Esta reunión estará abierta al público y permite comentarios públicos en vivo. La reunión también se grabará, se transmitirá en vivo y se publicará en el sitio web de la Ciudad después de la clausura de la reunión si se presentan dificultades técnicas:
https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/
El enlace web de ZOOM, la identificación de la reunión y el número de teléfono se enumerarán en la parte superior de la Agenda de la reunión del Ayuntamiento. Se le pedirá que ingrese la ID de la reunión, pero no habrá contraseña ni ID de participante.
Cómo ver o escuchar las reuniones del Consejo:
1. Veala a través del canal 28 de Comcast
2. Vea el video de transmisión en vivo en el sitio web de la ciudad
3. Mire y escuche en Zoom.us haciendo clic en el enlace en la Agenda del Consejo
4. Escuche llamando al número de Zoom listado en la Agenda del Consejo Vea la reunión del Consejo uniéndose a la reunión Zoom:
1. Por computadora, tableta o teléfono:
a. Antes de unirse a la reunión virtual del Ayuntamiento, le recomendamos que descargue la aplicación Zoom. Para registrarse en su propia cuenta gratuita, visite zoom.us/signup e ingrese su dirección de correo electrónico. Recibirá un correo electrónico de Zoom (no[email protected]) . En este correo electrónico, haga clic en Activar cuenta. b. Si ha iniciado sesión en su cuenta, ingrese la ID de la reunión que figura en la Agenda del Ayuntamiento. Si no ha creado una cuenta, vaya a: https://zoom.us/join e ingrese la ID de la reunión
c. Seleccione si desea conectar audio y / o video y toque Unirse a la reunión. re. Para obtener instrucciones específicas para su dispositivo, vaya a: https://support.zoom.us/hc/enus/articles/201362193-Joining-a-Meeting
2. Escuche solo por teléfono:
a. Marque el número que figura en la Agenda del Consejo. b. Cuando se le solicite, ingrese la ID de la reunión provista en la parte superior de la Agenda de la reunión del Concejo Municipal y presione #. No se requiere una identificación de participación.
c. Para desconectarse de la reunión, cuelgue el teléfono Formas de proporcionar comentarios públicos:
Mientras asiste a la reunión virtual del Ayuntamiento, el público tendrá la oportunidad de proporcionar comentarios públicos en vivo durante el Foro Público y después de cada tema de la agenda. Cuando sea el momento apropiado para comentarios públicos, el Alcalde abrirá verbalmente los comentarios públicos. En este momento, cada individuo tiene permitido 4 minutos parahablar.
1. Envíe un comentario público por adelantado a
[email protected]
La forma más fácil de proporcionar comentarios públicos es enviar su comentario público por correo electrónico. Los comentarios públicos pueden enviarse por correo electrónico a [email protected] en la línea de asunto "COMENTARIO AL CONSEJO y el PUNTO DEL PROGRAMA". Cualquier comentario público debe presentarse a más tardar 2 horas antes de la reunión programada y se incluirá como un archivo adjunto a la agenda. Todos los comentarios públicos se harán públicos y se adjuntarán al articulo de la agenda y no se leerán en voz alta. Todos los comentarios públicos que se reciban después de las 4:00 PM se adjuntarán a la agenda al día siguiente.
• 2. Proporcione comentarios a través de la reunión Zoom desde una computadora, tableta o teléfono inteligente
Esta opción permite que el público asista virtualmente a la reunión como un "asistente" silenciado sin capacidades de video o pantalla compartida. Podrá ver y escuchar a los participantes en la reunión, pero no podrán escucharlo hasta que el anfitrión de permisio.
Si desea proporcionar comentarios públicos durante un elemento específico de la agenda o durante un foro público, puede usar la función "levantar la mano" ubicada en el panel de control en la parte inferior de la pantalla. El icono es una pequeña mano azul. En Windows también puede usar el atajo de teclado Alt + Y para subir o bajar la mano. En Mac también puedes usar el atajo de teclado Alt + Y para subir o bajar lamano.
Se le notificará al anfitrión que ha levantado la mano y se lo colocará en fila con todas las solicitudes entrantes
Cuando sea su turno de hablar, se le notificará que el anfitrión le ha dado permiso de hablar. Para ser retirado de la fila, simplemente haga clic de nuevo el botón “levantar la mano”.
3. Llame a la reunión de ZOOM desde un teléfono fijo o móvil solamente
Esta opción le permite al miembro del público la oportunidad de participar verbalmente en comentarios públicos.
Si desea hablar durante el tiempo de comentarios públicos, marque * 9 en su teléfono.
Se le notificará al anfitrión que le gustaría hablar y se colocará en fila con todas las solicitudes entrantes.
Cuando sea su turno de hablar, se le notificará que el anfitrión le ha dado permiso de hablar.
Puede presionar * 9 nuevamente si desea ser eliminado de la fila.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: LC Arisman <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2022 9:23 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Comment to Council Support for Safe Storage Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America which has a strong presence in Napa Valley. Moms Demand Action is a non-partisan grassroots organization made up of both non-gun owners and gun owners with the goal of reducing gun violence and improving gun safety for everyone. We believe the 2nd Amendment can be respected while simultaneously better protecting people through common sense gun legislation.
We request that St Helena adopt a Safe Storage Ordinance which would require all firearms in a residence be securely stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.
One small child dies almost every day in this country after finding an unsecured firearm in their own home or in a relative’s home or while playing at a friend’s house.
Two older children, particularly teens, die every day in this country by suicide from an unsecured firearm they obtain from their home or another family member’s home.
In addition, 80% of school mass shootings are done by current or former students, using an unsecured firearm obtained from their own home or a relative’s home.
A Safe Storage ordinance has become more urgent than ever during Covid, given the dramatic rise in gun sales.
We have seen a shocking 43% increase in unintentional deaths of small children and a 9% increase in teen suicides.
Research shows that keeping guns securely stored does NOT hinder self-protection- a gun can be accessed within seconds- but it DOES prevent unintentional deaths of children and teen suicides, by as much as 85% depending on the type of storage.
Storing firearms in a securely locked container can also prevent guns from being easily stolen in a home robbery. A DOJ- approved safe storage device can be obtained for as little as $40 so the cost is not at all prohibitive, and trigger locks are often given out free at police stations.
Agenda Item #5.1.
2 Some people are under the impression that the California Penal Code (25100) already addresses this issue but it definitely does not. It does not define how to safely store a firearm and it doesn’t apply to all homes. For example, parents often hide their guns (feeling this makes them safe) rather than locking them up, but studies show 70% of children know the location of these hidden guns in their own home and many have even handled them.
Many cities and towns up and down California have already adopted Safe Storage ordinances. We hope that St Helena will do the same.
When considering the penalty for violating the Safe Storage Ordinance, Moms Demand Action supports a civil penalty, rather than a criminal penalty. We suggest a fine or community service.
This is because we feel people of color may be disproportionately affected by this law and we also think a criminal penalty is unnecessary. Most firearm owners are law abiding and will follow the law if it is simply in place.
We feel having this ordinance on the books will ultimately help to change our culture, much like the seat belt law did in the 1980’s. Towns early on in the process of adopting safe storage ordinances did often adopt a criminal penalty – that is, a misdemeanor-- but more recent towns have adopted a civil only penalty. We therefore ask that if you move forward with this ordinance, that a civil penalty be adopted.
We, at Moms Demand Action, are very happy to provide you with any additional information or answer any questions you may have as you consider this request. We can also provide you with the ordinances that have passed in other nearby towns and can also meet with your police chief if you like.
All my best,
LC Arisman
Moms Demand Action Volunteer
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #5.1.
CITY OF ST. HELENA
Proclamation Declaring National Library Week 2022
WHEREAS, libraries are accessible and inclusive places that foster a sense of connection and build community;
WHEREAS, libraries connect people to technology, providing access to broadband internet, computers, and training that are critical for accessing education and employment opportunities; WHEREAS, libraries offer opportunities for everyone to connect with new ideas and become their best selves through access to multimedia content, programs, and classes – in addition to books;
WHEREAS, today’s libraries and their services extend far beyond the four walls of a building and everyone is welcome to use their resources;
WHEREAS, in times of crisis, libraries and library professionals play an invaluable role in supporting their communities both in person and virtually; WHEREAS, libraries strive to develop and maintain programs and collections that are as diverse as the populations they serve and ensure equity of access for all; WHEREAS, to adapt to our changing world, libraries are expanding their resources and continuing to meet the needs of their patrons;
WHEREAS, libraries have long served as trusted and treasured institutions for all members of the community regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socio-economic status;
WHEREAS, libraries are cornerstones of democracy, promoting the free exchange of information and ideas for all;
WHEREAS, libraries, librarians, and library workers are joining library supporters and advocates across the nation to celebrate National Library Week;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that I Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor of the City of St. Helena, along with my fellow council colleagues, of the City of St. Helena, proclaim National Library Week, April 3-9, 2022. During this week, I encourage all residents to connect with their library by visiting online or in person to access resources and services.
March 22, 2022
____________________________
Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #7.1.
March 16, 2022
NVTA Agenda Item 9.1
Continued From: New
Action Requested: APPROVE
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Board Agenda Memo
______________________________________________________________________ TO: NVTA Board of Directors
FROM: Kate Miller, Executive Director
REPORT BY: Danielle Schmitz, Director, Capital Development and Planning (707) 259-5968 / Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 17-06, Revised Amending the One Bay Area Grant Cycle 2 (OBAG 2) Program to Address the Calistoga to St. Helena Vine Trail Funding Shortfall
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
That the NVTA Board approve:
(1) Amend the One Bay Area Grant Cycle 2 (OBAG 2) Program to move $2.206 million Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds currently programmed to Green Island Road Class I and the St. Helena Main Street Improvements to the Calistoga to St. Helena Vine Trail project by adopting Resolution 17-06, Revised (Attachment 1);
(2) Committing $2.206 million in funding from the One Bay Area Grant Cycle 3 (OBAG 3) to Green Island Road Class I ($1 million) and St. Helena Main Street Pedestrian Improvements ($1.206 million)
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
None
BACKGROUND
The Calistoga to St. Helena Vine Trail project is a 6-mile class 1 path that will connect the two cities as part of the Napa Valley Vine Trail’s 47-mile ultimate alignment. The project team has already spent $4.1 million on preconstruction phases for the Calistoga to St. Helena segment. The construction need is $14.4 million. The funding secured to date is a mix of federal, state, and local funds, including $6.1 million in Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds. The project bid opening was held on February 3 rd
.
The lowest responsive bidder was Ghilotti Construction with a bid of $12.585 million.
Agenda Item #7.2.
Napa Valley Transportation Authority Agenda Item 9.1
March 16, 2022
____________________________________________________________________________________ The cost to construct the project, including contingency, is expected to be $14.4 million leaving a $4.2 million shortfall from what has been secured to date ($10.2 million). Staff is proposing to backfill a portion of the shortfall by moving $2.206 million in OBAG 2 funds from the Green Island Road Class I and the St. Helena Main Street Pedestrian Improvements. The remaining $2 million is proposed to come from State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds from anticipated savings on Soscol Junction. A formal request for this action will come before the Board at the April meeting once Caltrans has awarded the Soscol Junction contract and freed up excess STIP funds.
The Green Island Road Class I and the St. Helena Main Street Pedestrian Improvements will be prioritized for OBAG 3 funds along with the Silverado Five-Way project (which had previously been deprogrammed of OBAG 2 funds in 2020 to fund the Calistoga to St. Helena Vine Trail project). This brings the total OBAG 3 commitment to $4.2 million. These commitments leave Napa County with very little available funding for new project capacity under the OBAG 3 program.
ALTERNATIVES
The board could reject the funding proposal and task staff to identify other ways to backfill the funding shortfall. This could delay the project and potentially put the ATP funds at risk. There is also very limited opportunity to identity other funds for this project.
The Board could also cancel the project and forego pursuing the Active Transportation Program funds at this time, however this would compromise NVTA and other Napa Valley agencies ability to compete for future ATP funds.
STRATEGIC GOALS MET BY THIS PROPOSAL
Goal 1: Serve the transportation needs of the entire community regardless of age, income, and ability.
Goal 5: Minimize the energy and other resources required to move people and goods.
The Calistoga to St. Helena Vine Trail project will provide walking and cycling alternatives that will better serve low income communities and reduce auto use.
ATTACHMENTS
(1) Revised Resolution No. 17-06
Agenda Item #7.2.
MINUTES
City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, March 8, 2022 @ 6:00 PM
A complete video recording of this meeting, except for closed session, can be found at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/ or by calling the City Clerk at (707) 968-2742. The City Council video is the official record of the Council meeting.
Present: Mayor Geoff Ellsworth, Vice Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Lester Hardy, and Council Member Eric Hall
Absent: None
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
3.1 Adoption of the agenda
City Clerk Cindy Tzafopoulos noted item 10.3 was removed from the consent calendar.
Council Member Lester Hardy moved to approve the agenda as amended. The motion was seconded by Council Member Anna Chouteau and on roll call carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Geoff Ellsworth, Vice Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Lester Hardy, and Council Member Eric Hall NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
4. ROLL CALL
5. PUBLIC FORUM:
Amber Manfree addressed the City Council.
6. REPORTS BY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, and AB 1234 REPORTS:
Agenda Item #10.1.
Regular City Council
March 8, 2022
Reports were made by staff and City Council.
7. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS
7.1 Proclamation Recognizing March 2022 as Red Cross Month Presented to Toni Lent, Napa County Disaster Action Team (DAT) and Betsy Witthohn, Volunteer Partner of the Disaster Program Manager for Napa and Sonoma Counties Betsy Witthohn addressed the City Council.
8. STAFF BRIEFING
8.1 None
9. YOUTH REPRESENTATIVE BRIEFING
9.1 None
10. CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Council or the public may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of considering alternative action, for extended discussion, or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. (Roll Call Vote)
10.1 Consideration and proposed approval of February 22, 2022 Special Joint Meeting Minutes and February 22, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes Item 10.2 was removed from the consent calendar.
10.2 Adoption of Resolution Making Findings and Determinations under AB 361 for the Continuation of Virtual Meetings.
Item 10.3 was not heard.
10.3 Consideration and Proposed Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Artemis Habitat, in an amount not-to-exceed $48,000 for Invasive Species Management for the Upper York Creek Ecosystem Restoration, City Project No. W-26.
CEQA Determination: Environmental Impact Report (SCH. No. 2006092096) Prepared By: Martin Beltran, Management Analyst
Recommendation:
Staff Recommends City Council Adopt the attached Resolution.
10.4 Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution duly approving and adopting a publicly available pay schedule in accordance with the requirement of California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5, which includes a revised salary schedule for the part-time Casual Worker I classification.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Agenda Item #10.1.
Regular City Council
March 8, 2022
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Asst. Administrative Services Director Recommendation:
Staff recommends City Council duly approve and adopt the publicly available pay schedule in accordance with the requirement of California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5 which includes a revised salary schedule for the part-time Casual Worker I classification, and make no other changes to the salary schedule for other classifications.
10.5 Consideration and proposed adoption of a resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for the R19-79 Pavement Restoration Project in an amount not to exceed $94,740 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.
CEQA Determination: Class I Categorical Exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA
Prepared By: Martin Beltran, Management Analyst
Recommendation:
Staff recommends City Council adopt the attached resolution.
Council Member Eric Hall moved to approve Consent items 10.1, 10.4 and
10.5. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lester Hardy and on roll call carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Geoff Ellsworth, Vice Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Lester Hardy, and Council Member Eric Hall NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
10.2 Adoption of Resolution Making Findings and Determinations under AB 361 for the Continuation of Virtual Meetings.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Recommendation:
Approve the Attached Resolution Making Findings and Determinations Under AB 361.
Vice Mayor Paul Dohring moved to approve item 10.2. The motion was seconded by Council Member Anna Chouteau and on roll call carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Geoff Ellsworth, Vice Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Lester Hardy, and Council Member Eric Hall NOES: None
Agenda Item #10.1.
Regular City Council
March 8, 2022
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
11.1 Consideration and proposed adoption of the following:
Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration / Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project, make the required findings; and Adopt a resolution making specific findings and recommending City Council approve the proposed Mills Lane Storm Drain Improvements Project.
*This item was noticed to be heard at the November 9, 2021 regular City Council meeting and was subsequently continued to the December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, January 25, 2022, February 8, 2022, February 22, 2022 and March 8, 2022, regular City Council meetings. This item is being continued again to the March 22, 2022 regular City Council meeting.
12. OLD BUSINESS
12.1 FY 2021/22 Third Quarter Update on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Martin Beltran, Management Analyst
Recommendation:
Discussion and direction to staff.
Public Works Director Mark Rincon reported on the item.
It was the consensus of the City Council to:
• Prioritize CIP Projects in a workshop setting
• Update project cost data and redefine projects as needed • Funding needs to be identified (none, partial, full) and sources (local, state, fed); perhaps have a second sheet with an unfunded project list • Need to factor in staffing into project delivery schedule • Need to capture progress – staff will keep quarterly reports on webpage for comparison
No public comment was received.
13. NEW BUSINESS
13.1 Conduct a First Reading of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 2.76 to Title 2 of the St. Helena Municipal Code Relating to Electronic and Paperless Filing of Campaign Disclosure Statements and Adopt a Resolution Relating to Agenda Item #10.1.
Regular City Council
March 8, 2022
Electronic Filing of Statements of Economic Interests
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Recommendation:
Introduce first reading and approve by title only and waive further reading.
City Clerk Cindy Tzafopoulos reported on the item.
No public comment was received.
Council Member Anna Chouteau moved to approve the recommended action.
The motion was seconded by Council Member Eric Hall and on roll call carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Geoff Ellsworth, Vice Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Lester Hardy, and Council Member Eric Hall NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
14. ITEMS LIKELY TO BE PLACED ON THE NEXT OR FUTURE MEETING AGENDA:
14.1 March City Council Meetings:
3/22 (Staff reports due 3/4)
Presentation
3/22 National Library Week Proclamation
CONSENT:
3/22 Professional Service Agreement for Water and Wastewater Rate Study
Amendment #5 Napa Water Agreement
3/22 Award of Contract for MarinIT for IT improvements at the NVC 3/22 Conduct a Second Reading of an Ordinance Adding Chapter of the St. Helena Municipal Code Relating to Electronic and Paperless Filing of Campaign Disclosure Statements
PH or OLD / NEW BUSINESS:
3/22 Mills Lane
3/22 Chamber annual update
3/22 Water Penalty Discussion
3/22 Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution: (1) approving Revision No. 3 to City Council Policy P-FI-0016 Financial Policy related to: (a) compliance with GASB Statement No. 98 updating the name, "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report" to Agenda Item #10.1.
Regular City Council
March 8, 2022
"Annual Comprehensive Financial Report", (b) update language related to financing Capital Improvement Projects and (2) repealing an rescinding any previous policies or administrative memoranda which are inconsistent with City Council Policy P-FI-0016 Financial Policy, Revision No. 3.
April City Council Meetings:
4/12 (Staff reports due 3/25)
4/26 (Staff reports due 4/8)
Presentation
4/12 12. 4/12 2022 Sexual Assault Awareness Month Proclamation CONSENT:
Review and Feedback of Scope for new Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee
4/26 Quarterly Grant Report FY22 3RD Quarter
15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ellsworth adjourned the meeting at 6:54 p.m.
The March 8, 2022 regular City Council meeting minutes were adopted at the March 22, 2022 regular City Council meeting.
APPROVED:
______________________________
Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #10.1.
Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 22 Mar 2022
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Subject: Conduct a Second Reading and Proposed Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 2.76 to Title 2 of the St. Helena Municipal Code Relating to Electronic and Paperless Filing of Campaign Disclosure Statements
CEQA
Determination:
Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Reviewed By: April Mitts, Administrative Services Director Approved By: James C. McCann, Interim City Manager
BACKGROUND
The Political Reform Act of 1974 requires the filing of specified statements, reports and other documents. Under the Act, a local government agency may require these filings to be made online or electronically with the local filing officer (the City Clerk). With the enactment of more recent legislation, AB2452 and AB2151, the Act requires the local filing officer to make all data available on the internet in an easily understood format that provides the greatest public access within 72 hours of the filing deadline.
Historically, City Council candidates and campaign committees have filed paper copies of required campaign statements and reports. Once filed, the documents are made available for review by the public. The City Clerk’s Office spends a significant amount of staff time to make such paper filings readily available and posted online which requires further handling.
Public access to campaign disclosure information is a vital and integral component of a fully informed electorate. Transparency in campaign financing is critical in order to maintain public trust and support of the political process. Nevertheless, these values require staff resources to implement. As a means to more cost-effectively maintain the public trust, the City contracted with CampaignDocs by Granicus for installation of two Agenda Item #10.2.
electronic programs for on-line submittal and posting of Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) forms related to Conflict of Interest (i.e. Form 700s) and Campaign Disclosure documents (i.e. Form 460s). Both programs have been installed and are operational, however, there is one remaining authorization necessary by Council in order to make these filings fully electronic.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 84615, the City Council must officially adopt an Ordinance memorializing their approval to require and authorize complete electronic signature and submission of electronic campaign disclosure forms. Tonight’s action is the first of a two-step process to implement electronic filing.
The purpose of the proposed Ordinance is two-fold: 1) to require online electronic filing of campaign statements, and, 2) to require online reporting of contributions and independent expenditures with electronic signature related to elections of candidates for City Council and/or the qualification or passage of local ballot measures within the City.
These filings are required under the Political Reform Act (GC 84200 et. sec.), either electronically or in paper format. This Ordinance ensures filings will be available electronically as a more cost-effective use of staff resources. The electronic filing system will operate securely and effectively and will not unduly burden filers. Also, requiring electronic filing versus paper filings will ensure the City Clerk's office meets the 72-hour posting requirement.
The proposed ordinance pertains specifically to the campaign finance component of the CampaignDocs by Granicus system, and will only apply to those filers that exceed a threshold of $2,000 for expending or receiving campaign funds, or another amount as established under the Political Reform Act. This section reflects Senate Bill No. 1329 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), which updates applicable thresholds to $2,000 effective when “the Secretary of State certifies an online filing and disclosure system pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 84602 of the Government Code.” This threshold is also consistent with the Act, which recognizes campaigns that spend or raise more than $2,000 as “Controlled Committees.” Under the Act, these types of committees are obligated to file detailed campaign finance disclosure statements, also known as Form 460s. For those smaller campaigns that do not exceed the $2,000 threshold, they may continue to file paper versions of the Form 470 disclosure forms. That being said, it should be noted that the CampaignDocs by Granicus system is able to accommodate the online filing of several types of required forms by the FPPC, including Forms 460, 470, 496, and 497, which are the most commonly used in St. Helena’s local election campaigns.
The CampaignDocs by Granicus system is created specifically for cities and counties responsible for administering campaign finance filings and Statements of Economic Interest, meets the requirements of the Secretary of State, and allows for electronic and paperless filing of campaign statements.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.
Agenda Item #10.2.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Conduct second reading and proposed approve by title only and waive further reading.
ATTACHMENTS
E-Filing Ordinance
Agenda Item #10.2.
1 ORDINANCE 2022-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA, ADDING CHAPTER 2.76 TO TITLE 2 OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ELECTRONIC AND PAPERLESS FILING OF CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS AND
STATEMENTS OF ECONOMIC INTEREST
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Purpose and Authority.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to require the filing of Campaign Disclosure Statements and Statements of Economic Interest by elected officials, candidates, staff, consultants, or committees to be completed electronically. The City Council enacts this Ordinance in accordance with the authority granted to cities by state law. This ordinance is intended to supplement, and not conflict with, the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 2. Findings.
The City Council of the City of St. Helena finds and determines as follows:
A. That California Government Code Section 84615 provides that a legislative body of a local government agency may adopt an ordinance that requires an elected officer, candidate, or committee, required to file statements, reports, or other documents required by Chapter 4 of the Political Reform Act to file such statements, reports, or other documents online or electronically with the City Clerk.
B. In any instance in which the original statement is required to be filed with the Secretary of State and a copy of that statement is required to be filed with the City, the filer is permitted, but not required, to file a copy electronically; C. The City Clerk's web-based system contains multiple safeguards to protect the integrity and security of the data, will operate securely and effectively, and will not unduly burden filers; and
D. The City Clerk will operate the electronic filing system in compliance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 84615 and any other applicable laws.
E. The e online or electronic filing system to be established pursuant to this ordinance will operate securely and effectively and will not unduly burden filers.
F. This Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that the Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility to have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 3. Addition:
St. Helena Municipal Code 2.76, "Electronic Filing of Campaign Disclosure Statements and Statements of Economic Interest," is hereby added to read as follow:
2.76.010 Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words, terms and phrases shall be defined as follows:
Agenda Item #10.2.
2 A. “Electronic filing system” means a system established by the City Clerk pursuant to Section 84615 of the Government Code for electronic filing of statements, as defined herein.
B. “Filer” means any elected officer, candidate, committee, or other person required to file statements, as defined herein.
C. “Statements” shall mean any statements, reports, or other documents that filers must file in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 84100, et seq.).
2.76.020 Electronic Filing System.
A. Pursuant to Government Code section 84615, the City Clerk may establish an electronic filing system.
B. The electronic filing system shall meet the following requirements:
1. Comply with all requirements set forth in Section 84615 of the Government Code.
2. Ensure the integrity of data transmitted, including by establishing safeguards against efforts to tamper with, manipulate, alter, or subvert data.
3. Accept filing in the standardized record format developed by the California Secretary of State pursuant to Section 84602(a)(2) of the California Government Code, compatible with the Secretary of State's system for receiving an online or electronic filing.
4. Include a procedure for filers to comply with the requirement that they sign statements and reports under penalty of perjury pursuant to Section 81004 of the Government Code.
2.76.030 Required Online Filing.
A. Upon establishment of an electronic filing system by the City Clerk pursuant to Section
2.76.010(A), each filer shall file statements using the City Clerk's electronic filing system according to procedures established by the City Clerk. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, filers are exempt from these requirements if they received less than $2,000 in contributions and made less than $2,000 in expenditures, or another amount as established by the Political Reform Act. in a calendar year.
B. Filers who have electronically filed a statement using the City Clerk's electronic filing system is are not required to file copies in a copy of that document in paper format with the City Clerk.
C. Filers shall file statements in paper format with the City Clerk if the electronic filing system is not capable of accepting a statement for any reason.
D. The electronic filing system shall allow filers to complete and submit statements free of charge.
2.76.040 Availability of Statements for Public Review; Record Retention.
A. The City Clerk shall make available on the City’s website all data filed pursuant to this Chapter in an easily understood format that provides the greatest feasible public access.
Data shall be made available free of charge and as soon as possible after receipt.
B. Data made available on the City's webpage shall not contain the street name and building number of the persons or entity representatives listed on the electronically filed forms or any bank account number required to be disclosed by the filer. A complete, unredacted copy of the statement shall be made available to any person upon request to the City Clerk’s office.
C. The City Clerk's office shall maintain online or electronic statements in compliance with State law and the City’s adopted Retention Schedule.
SECTION 4. Effective Date.
Agenda Item #10.2.
3 This ordinance shall be published pursuant to law and shall become effective 30 days from the date of passage and adoption.
SECTION 5. Severability.
If any provision of this Ordinance or its application is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, sections, or applications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and to this end each phrase, section, sentence, or word is declared to be severable.
SECTION 6. Certification
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of St. Helena on this day of , 2022, after being first read at a Regular Meeting on the day of , 2022.
Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #10.2.
Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 22 Mar 2022
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Subject: February 2022 Review and Forecasting of City Water Supply Availability
CEQA
Determination:
Exempt
Prepared By: Martin Beltran, Management Analyst
Reviewed By: Mark Rincon-Ibarra, Public Works Director and City Engineer Approved By: James C. McCann, Interim City Manager
BACKGROUND
The City of St. Helena publishes a monthly water report on the City website (www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/water-reports). The report includes the amount of water produced at the Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant and the Stonebridge Potable Water Wells, and potable water delivered from Napa Water. In addition to presenting data on the amount delivered monthly, the report includes year-to-date information and prior year data. Water elevation and capacity at the Bell Canyon Reservoir is included as well as information on rain and temperatures.
On April 27, 2021, the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance updating the regulatory requirements for commercial, industrial, and institutional users due to the seasonal nature of their water use. Beginning in June 2021, the updated Phase II allocation for commercial, industrial, and institutional users is 10% less than that user’s average water use during the three preceding non-shortage years by month. For current calculations the following years are being used: 2017, 2018, and 2019. This baseline for determining allocations for commercial, industrial, and institutional users also applies in Phase III.
The Urgency Ordinance also updated the basis for which a Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III water emergency is determined from whether the City has sufficient volume of water to meet its needs through November 1st, to whether the City has sufficient volume to Agenda Item #10.3.
meet its needs through the subsequent May 1st, after making conservative assumptions regarding rainfall during the rainy season based on recent data. The change to the standard allows the City to take into account potentially very low rainfall during the rainy season, and less than full replenishment of the City’s water supply storage.
At the City Council meeting of July 27, 2021, the City Council requested City staff enhance the monthly water report to include a forecast of available water supply, consistent with the recently adopted Urgency Ordinance. This request is consistent with the City's Fiscal Year 2021-22 Council Goal to develop a Comprehensive Water Security Framework, and the recently developed Framework that includes a goal to "Maximize Conservation During Water Emergency" and subtask 1C to "provide customers with comparison of actual vs. projected water demand" as well as Framework Goal Improve Consumer Satisfaction and Confidence" and subtask 3C to "pursuant additional analytical tools to improve consumer confidence."
DISCUSSION
In recent months, City staff has developed a forecasting tool to facilitate its ability to optimize water use and track water availability. Included as Attachment 1 is the Monthly Water Report for January 2022. The water produced for February 2022 is down by 14.5% when compared to February 2021 and down by 14.5% when compared to the average of February 2017-2019. The storage in Bell Canyon graph (Attachment 2) shows the water availability forecast for Bell Canyon based on the highest water usage during non-drought year.
The City continues to experience a pump failure at Rutherford Pump Station and is working with the City of Napa to address low water pressure concerns. Operational challenges due to aged infrastructure has resulted in the City not being able to deliver water from City of Napa.
Water Produced or Delivered per Source
Source
Average (2018 -
2020)
(Acre-Feet)
February 2021
(Acre-Feet)
February 2022
(Acre-Feet)
Bell Canyon 38 56 38
Stonebridge Wells 8 18 33
Napa Water 37 9 0
Total 83 83 71
Percent change from average of February 2018 - 2020: -14.5% Percent change from February 2021: -14.5%
FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Agenda Item #10.3.
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Monthly Water Report, February 1-28, 2022 Attachment 2: Storage in Bell Canyon Graph, Feb. 2022
Agenda Item #10.3.
CITY OF ST. HELENA
MONTHLY WATER REPORT
CC: CC __X__ PC__X__ FILE _____
RECEIVED: _____ BY: __
LOUIS
STRALLA
WATER PLANT
TK #1 & #2
ADJUST
37.82 12.32 1.17
50.6% 4.7%
24.33 MG MG
1.56 MG MG
0.31 MG MG
0.84 MG MG
%%
281.07 AF 32.7% 552.73 AF 46.1%
91.59 MG 180.11 MG
219.63 AF 25.6% 288.33 AF 24.1%
71.54 MG 93.96 MG
357.65 AF 41.7% 357.79 AF 29.8%
116.54 MG 116.59 MG
TOTAL WATER DELIVERY (ALL) 858.35 AF 100.0% 1198.85 AF 100.0%
0.00 0.00
419.40 FT. FT.
‐1.49 FT. FT.
712.62 MG MG
92.0 %%
0.07 IN IN
23.43 IN IN
DISCLAIMER: The data presented in this report is approximate and for informational purposes only.
Updates will be provided if any errors are identified.
AVERAGE 49 52
REMARKS
City of Napa Water Delivery on Target: No. The City experienced a pump failure at Rutherford Pump Station and is working with the City of Napa to address low water pressure concerns.
THIS YEAR THIS MONTH, LAST YR.
DEGREES IN FAHRENHEIT 32 ‐79 34‐70
TEMPERATURES
MONTHLY RISE OR DROP 1.51
CAPACITY AT END OF PERIOD 310.89
PERCENT OF FULL CAPACITY 40.0
RAINFALL IN THIS PERIOD 1.89
TOTAL RAINFALL SEASON TO DATE 10.84
ELEVATION BELL CANYON RESERVOIR 400.11
STONEBRIDGE APARTMENTS MG/Feb 1‐28 0.00 MG/Feb 1 ‐ 28
WATER ELEVATION, CAPACITY & RAINFALL
THIS FISCAL YEAR LAST FISCAL YEAR
NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE MG/Feb 1‐28 0.784 MG/Feb 1 ‐ 28
STONEBRIDGE POTABLE WELLS
SBW IRRIGATION WATER
THIS MONTH THIS MONTH, LAST YR.
THIS FISCAL YEAR LAST FISCAL YEAR
LOUIS STRALLA WATER PLANT
NAPA WATER
MINIMUM DAILY DELIVERY 0.71
AVERAGE DAILY DELIVERY 0.83
WATER YEAR TOTALS
WATER DELIVERY (AGGREGATE)
TOTAL DELIVERY THIS PERIOD 28.15
MAXIMUM DAILY DELIVERY 1.21
0.581 0.10
PERCENT 44.2% 0.4%
3.59 February 1 ‐ 28, 2022
STONEBRIDGE
POTABLE
WELLS
SBW
IRRIGATION
WATER
NAPA WATER
THIS YEAR LAST YEAR
AMOUNT PRODUCED in AF 33.00 1.784 0.35
AMOUNT PRODUCED in MG 10.75
Agenda Item #10.3.
Supply Level (Acre Feet)
2500
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
Assumes: (1) Highest usage during non-drought year (FY2019/20) BellCanyon Water Storage Forecast
(2) No more rainfall until next rain season
480
Available Storage
1592 1510 1452 1395 1326 1253
1165
1076 995 957 977 1004 1010 1002 930 922 848 776
687
599 518
596 Acre Feet*
596
Current Mar—22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun—22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov—22 Dec—22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 Apr-23 May—23 Jun-23 Jul-23 Aug-23 Sep-23 Oct-23 *2596reserveforfHe Date
Nov-23
500
596
Dec-23 Agenda Item #10.3.
Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 22 Mar 2022
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Subject: Adoption of Resolution Making Findings and Determinations under AB 361 for the Continuation of Virtual Meetings.
CEQA
Determination:
Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Reviewed By: April Mitts, Administrative Services Director Approved By: James C. McCann, Interim City Manager
BACKGROUND
On March 17, 2020, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings completely telephonically or by other electronic means.
The provisions in the Brown Act that were suspended by the Governor’s Executive Order are contained at Government Code Section 54953(b)(3) and require that when teleconferencing is used, outside of a statewide emergency, that the following occur:
• An agenda is required to be posted at all locations, including any teleconference locations
• Each teleconference location must be identified on the actual agenda • Each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public • A quorum of the legislative body must be in the jurisdiction With the Governor’s Executive Order, the four above requirements were suspended. This allowed City Council and all other meetings of legislative bodies of the City to be conducted by Zoom with councilmembers, commission members, committee members, and staff all joining from remote locations.
Agenda Item #10.4.
The suspension of certain Brown Act provisions was further extended by the Governor on June 11, 2021 through the issuance of Executive Order N-08-21, which continued to allow for complete virtual meetings until September 30, 2021.
With the Governor’s Executive Order expiring at the end of September 2021, the State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 361. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, which allowed legislative bodies to meet virtually provided there was a state of emergency declared by the Governor, and either (1) state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or (2) the legislative body determines by majority vote that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees, subject to certain ongoing findings by the legislative body.
AB 361 also preserves many of the provisions of the earlier executive orders, including the suspension of the four teleconferencing requirements noted above, while also adding new requirements to the management of remote and teleconference public meetings in order to better achieve the levels of transparency that the Brown Act demands.
Specifically, AB 361 imposes two new rules on remote public meetings:
1. Local governments and agencies hosting teleconference meetings in lieu of traditional in-person public meetings must permit direct public comment during the teleconference, and must leave open the opportunity for public comment until the comment period for a given item is closed during the ordinary course of the meeting. The opportunity to make public comment must be of a sufficient duration so as to allow actual public participation. The City already complies with this requirement, so it presents no change to our current practice.
2. Any action by the governing body during a public teleconference meeting must occur while the agency is actively and successfully broadcasting to members of the public through a call-in option or an internet-based service option. If a technical disruption within the agency’s control prevents members of the public from either viewing the meeting of the public agency, or prevents members of the public from offering public comment, the agency must cease all action on the meeting agenda until the disruption ends and the broadcast is restored. Action taken during an agency-caused disruption may be challenged as a violation of the Brown Act.
The City Council held its first virtual meeting based on the conditions set forth in AB 361 on October 12, 2021. In order to continue to qualify for AB 361’s waiver of in-person meeting requirements, the City Council must, within every 30 days of its first meeting under AB 361, make findings that (a) state or local officials recommend measures to promote social distancing, or that (b) an in-person meeting would constitute an imminent risk to the safety of attendees. State officials at Cal-OSHA have, through the adoption of certain regulations, recommended measures to promote social distancing throughout the State. Additionally, Napa County Public Health Officer Dr. Karen Relucio has, through a memo dated September 27, 2021, recommended the continuance of virtual meetings at the present time as a means of promoting social distancing in order to minimize the spread and transmission of COVID-19 in Napa County.
Agenda Item #10.4.
It is important to note that AB 361 does not require the City to continue with virtual meetings, but simply gives the Council that option. If at any time the City Council desires to return to in-person meetings, the Council can agendize that topic for discussion and direct staff to initiate the transition back to in-person or hybrid meetings; however, at this time City staff is recommending adoption of the resolution to allow City Council and all other Commission, Committee, and other Brown Act meetings to continue to be held remotely in order to ensure social distancing consistent with the recommendations of State and local officials.
At the September 28, 2021 regular City Council meeting, the City Council had a discussion item and considered whether to meet in person or continue virtual meetings.
It was the consensus of the City Council to continue with the Zoom meeting platform until staff is relocated to Napa Valley College.
DISCUSSION
The City Council held its first virtual meeting based on the conditions set forth in AB 361 on October 12, 2021. The City Council reconsidered and adopted findings by resolution to continue meeting virtually on November 23, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, February 8, 2022 and March 8, 2022. This is being reconsidered on March 22, 2022.
The enclosed resolution makes the necessary findings for the City Council and all subordinate legislative bodies of the City that are subject to the Brown Act to continue with virtual meetings for the time being. City staff will return to the City Council with a resolution every 30 days to allow for the continuance of virtual meetings for so long as Council and staff believes that virtual meetings are necessary.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve the Attached Resolution Making Findings and Determinations Under AB 361.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution AB361
Agenda Item #10.4.
CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ST. HELENA MAKING FINDINGS AND
DETERMINATIONS UNDER AB 361 FOR THE
CONTINUATION OF VIRTUAL MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.) generally requires local agencies meeting via teleconference, including through other virtual or electronic means to, among other things, provide public access at each location in which members of the legislative body are teleconferencing; and WHEREAS, the Legislature recently enacted Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361), which amended Government Code section 54953 to allow local agencies to meet fully virtually, without fully adhering to the rules otherwise applicable to teleconferencing, during a proclaimed state of emergency if state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; and
WHEREAS, the Governor issued a proclamation declaring a state of emergency on March 4, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act, and this proclaimed state of emergency currently remains in effect; and
WHEREAS, state or local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and in particular, Cal-OSHA regulation 3205 recommends physical distancing in the workplace generally and regulates a “close contact,” defined as being within 6 feet of another under certain circumstances, and Napa County Health Officer Dr. Karen Relucio has recommended that local public agencies refrain from holding in person public meetings, as a means of promoting social distancing; and
WHEREAS, the continuation of virtual meetings will allow for full participation by members of the public and compliance with the recommendations of state and local officials with regard to social distancing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Helena desires that all City legislative bodies continue to hold virtual meetings pursuant to AB 361 and Government Code section 54953(e).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AS FOLLOWS:
Agenda Item #10.4.
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
SECTION 3. As stated in the recitals, state or local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing.
SECTION 4. The City Council and all other legislative bodies of the City of St.
Helena who are required to hold public meetings shall continue to meet virtually in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and without compliance with section 54953(b)(3), based upon the findings and determinations hereby made by the City Council.
Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on March 22, 2022, by the following vote:
Mayor Geoff Ellsworth:
Vice Mayor Paul Dohring:
Council Member Anna Chouteau:
Council Member Lester Hardy:
Council Member Eric Hall:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ ________________________
Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #10.4.
Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 22 Mar 2022
Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Subject: Ordinance Adding Chapter 17.138 "Time Share Uses" and Sections 17.138.060 to Title 17, Zoning of the St. Helena Municipal Code, amending sections 17.48.030 (Central
Business) and 17.52.030 (Service Commercial) and Deleting Section 17.112.130 of the St. Helena Municipal Code
CEQA
Determination:
Exempt
Prepared By: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Reviewed By: April Mitts, Administrative Services Director Approved By: James C. McCann, Interim City Manager
BACKGROUND
Over the past two years, there has been significant discussion in the community regarding Section 17.112.130 of the City’s Zoning Code, which prohibits the creation of a time-share project as a means of ownership of any single-family, two-family or multiple-family dwelling or any apartment house in the City (the “Time Share Ordinance”). The City Council discussed the Time Share Ordinance at its July 14, 2020 meeting in response to concerns raised regarding a real estate listing for a fractional or partial ownership interest in a residential home in the City. The prior City Attorney discussed this issue with the City, focusing on the question of the extent to which the City Council could regulate an ownership structure through the City’s zoning authority, and noted the challenges of doing so. At the conclusion of the Council’s discussion of this issue, Council directed the City Attorney and staff to continue to research its options to address the concerns raised by members of the community in response to the listing of the home at issue. In the months following the July 2020 Council meeting, the company that had been marketing that original home, now known as Pacaso, began marketing other homes in the City, and the City received additional complaints from members of the community. Based on new information that was available to the City, primarily through Pacaso’s marketing materials, the City Attorney’s office concluded that the properties being marketed by Pacaso were Agenda Item #11.1.
not just fractional or partial ownership structures, but were also being marketed to be used as a time share project that would be prohibited under the City’s ordinance, and informed Pacaso of that conclusion. Pacaso disagreed with the City Attorney’s conclusion, and initiated a lawsuit in an effort to compel the City to retract its conclusion. That litigation is ongoing.
When reviewing the Time Share Ordinance in this context, the City Attorney’s office found that the substance of the Time Share Ordinance has not been updated since its adoption in 1982. The City Attorney’s office concluded that the Time Share Ordinance would benefit from an update to refine the definitions to more directly address the impacts of time-share uses, to clarify the means used by the City to enforce the restrictions on time share uses, and to clarify how time share uses are treated in non-residential districts. City staff initially delayed initiating any changes to the Time Share Ordinance while the litigation was ongoing. However, due to the continued marketing of time share uses within the City, staff has decided to move forward with recommending the proposed updates to the City’s ordinance.
On March 1, 2022, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council approve the proposed ordinance.
DISCUSSION
The Discussion section of the Staff Report is organized as follows: First, the section provides a brief explanation for the City’s conclusion that the homes that have been marketed by Pacaso constitute time share projects. While the City’s conclusion does not directly affect the changes to the Zoning Code set forth in the proposed ordinance, it is helpful to understand that the Time Share Ordinance, both in its original form and as proposed to be amended, is intended to protect against the impacts that these homes and similar uses could have on the City’s housing supply and the character of the City’s residential districts. Second, this section discusses the legal basis for the City’s Time Share Ordinance, the reasons why the City prohibited time share uses in residential properties, and why those reasons continue to apply today. Third, this section outlines the changes made in the proposed ordinance and the reasons for the proposed changes.
A.Current Time Share Ordinance and Application to Pacaso Homes Section 17.112.130 of the Zoning Code prohibits the creation of a time-share project as a means of ownership of any single-family, two-family or multiple family dwelling or apartment house within the City. A time-share project is defined in that section as any real property that is subject to a time-share program. A time-share program is in turn defined in part as an arrangement whereby the use, occupancy or possession of the property circulates among purchasers according to a fixed or floating time schedule on a periodic basis for a specific period of time during any given year.
Pacaso provides a significant amount of information on its website regarding the manner in which its homes are used by the purchasers of a Pacaso home. According to Pacaso’s website, the single family residences marketed by Pacaso are held by a property-specific Agenda Item #11.1.
limited liability company (“LLC”), and each co-owner purchases a 1/8 share in the LLC. (Pacaso.com/learn) Each 1/8 share entitles the co-owner to 44 stay nights within any 365 day window. Stays can be from 2 to 14 nights in duration for each 1/8 share. Back-toback stays are not permitted. (Pacaso.com/faq/scheduling) Stays are booked on an app, with specific rules governing the number of “special dates” that each co-owner can book, and the number of stays that each owner can book during “peak seasons.” (Id.) Each owner can book the residence to use themselves, or may allow guests to use the residence, whether or not the co-owner is present. (Id.) Between each stay, Pacaso conducts a thorough inspection and cleaning. (“5 reasons Pacaso is better than a timeshare.” Pacaso.com/blog/better-than-resort-timeshare)
The Pacaso model grants each 1/8 owner the right to use the property for a specific period of time (44 days in a year) in increments of 2-14 days. The use, occupancy and possession of the property circulates among the co-owners according to a floating time schedule that gives each co-owner exclusive rights to the property for a specific period of time each year. This use structure fits squarely in the City’s definition of a time-share program, and the properties operated by Pacaso in this manner would therefore be timeshare projects under the existing Time Share Ordinance.
B.Reasons for the Time Share Ordinance
1. The City’s General Plan
The City of St. Helena has long been defined by its rural, small town quality and agricultural character. In adopting the St. Helena General Plan Update 2040, the City noted that the defining, unifying goal of all the elements of the 1993 General Plan was:
To protect the rural, small town quality and agricultural character of St. Helena. It is the General Plan’s intent that the preservation of this small town character be the unifying philosophy that overlays all other stated goals and policies.(General Plan 2040, p. 1-2.) While the 2040 General Plan acknowledges that this is no longer the sole, overriding focus of the General Plan, retaining the small town character of St. Helena remains a primary focus of the City’s land use planning. (Id.)
A key component of retaining the City’s small town character is maintaining a balance between the economic benefits that arise from visitors who come to St. Helena for its wineries, restaurants and historic downtown, and maintaining its authentic small town quality of life for the City’s residents. This theme is consistent throughout the City’s General Plan, and maintaining this balance is key to the City’s long term viability. The General Plan notes in its Introduction that “[t]he community stands out in the Valley for its unique, historic character and its ability to attract visitors while also supporting the needs of its resident population.” (General Plan p. 1-8.) The City has set goals to maintain that balance, striving to achieve an economy that “will meet the basic needs of residents, while balancing the benefits and impacts of visitors and provide better economic opportunities. (General Plan 1-15.) The City further seeks to “promote sustainable tourism practices that allow the City to enjoy the economic benefits of visitors to the region while maintaining the authentic small-town quality of life.” (General Plan p. 3-9.) Agenda Item #11.1.
St. Helena is a renowned tourist destination, bringing visitors from throughout the world to its wineries, restaurants and downtown, but it is also a functioning City and community, with residents who contribute to its social fabric. Like most communities throughout California, one of the key means that the City utilizes to maintain this balance is through its Zoning Ordinance. The City has commercial districts, like the Service Commercial district and the Central Business district, that provide for uses that serve both visitors and the local community, such as restaurants, retail shops and winery tasting rooms, among others, along with lodging where those visitors can stay. (St. Helena Municipal Code §§17.48.030, 17.52.030.) The City also has residential districts that provide housing for those who live in the community, at varying densities in order to provide a diversity of housing types.
2.Use of Zoning to Preserve Residential Areas
The use of zoning to preserve the character of the residential districts of a City has been common for over a century. In the seminal case of Euclid v. Ambler the United States Supreme Court upheld the validity of comprehensive zoning that would set aside residential districts “from which business and trade of every sort, including hotels and apartment houses, are excluded.” (Euclid v. Ambler Co. 272 U.S. 365, 390.) The U.S.
Supreme Court upheld the Village of Euclid’s zoning ordinance in that instance, noting that the inclusion of non-residential uses in residential districts may have an increasingly deleterious impact on the residential area “until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed.” (Id. at 394.)
The California Court of Appeals followed Euclid and subsequent cases in upholding the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s zoning restriction on short-term rentals. (Ewing v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1579.) In that case, the Court noted that the City’s chief purpose in adopting the short-term rental restriction was “to provide an appropriately zoned land area within the City for permanently single-family residential uses and structures and to enhance and maintain the residential character of the City.” (Id. at 1579.) In upholding Carmel’s short-term rental restriction, the Court found that short-term rentals “undoubtedly affect the essential character of a neighborhood and the stability of a community. Short-term tenants have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry. They do not participate in local government, coach little league, or join the hospital guild. They do not lead a scout troop, volunteer at the library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor. Literally, they are here today and gone tomorrow—without engaging in the sort of activities that weld and strengthen a community.” (Id. at 1591.)
3.Impacts of Time Share Uses on Residential Districts
Like Carmel, the City of St. Helena strives to maintain the character of its residential areas in the face of intense demand for accommodations to serve visitors to St. Helena. The Agenda Item #11.1.
Time Share Ordinance is one of the means that the City has in place to ensure that it is able to maintain its existing and limited housing stock for use in long term residency, and to maintain the character of its residential zoning districts. When the City originally adopted the Time Share Ordinance in 1982, the City Council made specific findings based on the impact it foresaw if time share uses were to locate in the residential areas of the City. Those findings were as follows:
1. There is a critical shortage of affordable housing in the city for long-term occupancies (more than six months annually), and the availability of additional residential dwelling units is substantially restricted by the growth management system.
2. The conversion of residential dwelling units within the city to time-sharing projects eliminates residential dwelling units otherwise available for long-term occupancies (more than six months annually) in the city.
3. Time-sharing projects have the same character as commercial hotels, motels and other transient occupancy uses due to their transient nature and to the multiple shortterm (less than six months annually) occupancies by those participating in timesharing projects.
4. Such commercial or quasi-commercial like use is inappropriate in residential areas due to the increased traffic generation and multiple occupancies disturbing the peace
and quiet of residential neighborhoods.
5. The city council finds and determines that this section is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city.
As discussed in more detail below, these findings continue to hold true in St. Helena, and continue to support the City’s decision to restrict time-share uses in residential districts. i. Housing Shortages and Impacts of Time-Share Uses on Existing Housing Stock In adopting the current Time Share Ordinance, the City Council found that there was a critical shortage of affordable housing in the City for long-term occupancies. That continues to be the case, and is undoubtedly worse than was the case at the time the Time Share Ordinance was originally adopted. The most recent census data lists the median value of owner occupied homes in St. Helena at $1,112,100 for the period of 2015-2019, while the Zillow Home Value Index estimates medial home values in St.
Helena to be approximately $1,870,000 as of February 2022. www.census.gov/quickfacts/sthelenacitycalifornia; zillow.com/home-values/.) In contrast, the median household income in St. Helena from 2015-2019 was $90,031, and the median income for a four person household in Napa County for 2021 is approximately $109,200. (www.census.gov/quickfacts/sthelenacitycalifornia; www.hcd.ca.gov/grantfunding/income-limits/state-and-federal-incomelimits/docs/income-limits-2021.pdf.) At the time of adoption of the City’s Housing Element in 2015, the income necessary to purchase a median priced single family home was nearly $200,000 per year, and prices Agenda Item #11.1.
have risen dramatically since then. (City of St. Helena Housing Element Update 2015¬23, p. 3.) The cost of homes currently in St. Helena are well in excess of what median income residents of St. Helena can afford, as well as median income residents of Napa County generally. Further, as Erika Sklar observed in the St. Helena Housing Update Report that she prepared for the City in April 2018, “St. Helena has more local jobs than people in the labor force, demanding large numbers of commuters to fill local jobs. Workers commute daily into St. Helena, many because there is no local housing that is affordable at the incomes that they make. 36% of St. Helena households cannot afford market rents while 70% of St. Helena households cannot afford to purchase a home. Paramedics and preschool teachers cannot afford St. Helena’s market rents. Teachers, registered nurses, winery and hospitality managers and non-profit directors cannot afford homeownership in St. Helena.” (St. Helena Housing Update Report, p. 7 (April 2018).) The City has made and continues to make efforts to address the need for affordable housing in the City, including providing assistance for the Brenkle Court, Turley Flats and 963 Pope Street projects. The City has also ensured that new non-residential development will assist the City in providing adequate affordable housing, as evidenced by the significant contributions to affordable housing made by the Farmstead Lodging project through its development agreement with the City. These efforts, however, have highlighted the challenges of providing housing at all income levels, with the most significant challenge being a limited supply of existing housing stock in the City, and a limited supply of available land for new housing. Given the housing shortage already in existence, losing additional housing stock will only make this problem worse.
The findings in the original Time Share Ordinance also note that the conversion of homes to time sharing projects would eliminate residential dwelling units that would otherwise be available for long term residential use. This continues to be true, as a home that is used for time share purposes will no longer be available for households to use as their long term residence. This threat to the City’s existing housing stock is not insignificant. The publicity regarding Pacaso’s rise as a company speaks to a pent up demand for homes that could be converted to time share use, reducing available housing stock for long term use. Pacaso’s co-founder has indicated that “[t]here are tens of millions of families that aspire to own second homes but are unable to, due to reasons of cost.” (Just Five Months Old, Zillow Co-founder’s Pacaso Claims It’s Already A Unicorn” Noah Kirsch, March 24, 2021 (www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2021/03/24/just-five-months-oldzillowcofounders-pacaso-claims-its-alread-a-unicorn/.)) In discussing Pacaso’s model, Dan Wenhold of the venture capital firm Fifth Wall said “[t]hey were taking a previously illiquid asset, which was a timeshare, and making it affordable for the masses, also making it attainable for folks who wanted to own a second home but previously weren’t able to.” (“Pacaso, the Proptech Startup Founds by Zillow Alums, Raises $125M Series C” Sophia Kunthara (September 14, 2021) (news.crunchbase.com/news/proptechstartup-pacasoraises-125m-series-c.)) Creating a new market for these prospective buyers who otherwise would not buy second homes unquestionably increases demand for these homes by creating an incentive for timeshare companies to buy up residences to meet this market demand. Creating more demand, and reducing supply, will further Agenda Item #11.1.
ratchet up housing costs, exacerbating the already significant housing shortage in the City.
ii. Impacts to Character of the City’s Residential Districts The City Council additionally found as part of the adoption of the original Time Share Ordinance that time-sharing projects have the same character as commercial hotels, motels and other transient occupancy uses due to their transient nature and to the multiple short-term occupancies by those participating in time-sharing projects. The Council concluded that this commercial or quasi-commercial like use is inappropriate in residential areas due to the increased traffic generation and multiple occupancies disturbing the peace and quiet of residential neighborhoods. This continues to be the case, as the nature of time share uses of residential property is different than the typical long term residential uses for which the residential districts of the City are intended.
The complaints that have been made by some local residents regarding the Pacaso homes are illustrative of the distinctions between time share uses and long term residential uses. A sampling of the email complaints received by the City are included in Attachment No. 2 to this Staff Report. The complaints received center on concerns over more intense traffic and parking issues, outdoor parties and conversations going late into the evening, sometimes as late as 2 A.M. One neighbor complained of outdoor lighting shining into her daughter’s room at night. They complained of traffic and inadequate parking for the visitors to these homes. Further, neighbors have noted that with each turnover from one stay to another, cleaning and landscaping crews come to clean the unit and prepare it for the next user. While this level of maintenance is appropriate for a commercial vacation property, it impacts the residential character of the surrounding area by adding parking and noise burdens in the neighborhood. Living next door to a home where the residents turnover every 2-14 days, and professional cleaning and landscaping crews come to the property between each visit is much more akin to living by a commercial lodging project than a residential home. This is not at all surprising, given that these time share homes are used by people who are on vacation. While long term residents may have an occasional party at their home, the time share model means that these residences are constantly being used by people who are on vacation, hosting parties or celebrating special occasions. These activities by their nature are more intense than typical residential use of property.
The intensity of this use is a significant reason that these uses can change the character of a residential neighborhood. Long term residents, whether owners or renters, will occasionally have guests, and will occasionally have parties, but these time-share homes are used exclusively by people who are coming to the City on a short term basis for vacation or leisure. People will naturally stay out later, entertain more and gather in larger numbers while on vacation. That is the reason that these uses are more appropriate in non-residential areas that are intended to cater to the City’s visitors and tourists. Time share uses can change the character of a residential neighborhood by having it serve not only as a residential area but also a visitor lodging area, and subjecting it to the impacts that come with that more intense land use.
Agenda Item #11.1.
In their marketing materials, Pacaso cites this intensity of use as a benefit, indicating that having these units filled with visitors seven days a week will benefit the local economy, since these visitors will patronize local businesses. (pacaso.com/communities) However, as noted above, the City strives through its General Plan to achieve a balance between benefits to the local economy and maintaining the character of the City. The City seeks to achieve this balance by promoting “sustainable tourist practices that allow the City to enjoy the economic benefits of visitors to the region while maintaining the authentic smalltown quality of life, (General Plan p. 3-9) and striving to achieve a local economy that “will meet the basic needs of residents, while balancing the benefits and impacts of visitors.” (General Plan p. 1-15.) Bringing more visitors into residential neighborhoods to improve the local economy does not help to achieve that balance. It instead tips the scales in favor of the local economy, at the expense of the residential character of these neighborhoods.
The nature of the timeshare use itself can impact the residential character of the City’s residential districts because it will ensure that the time share users can only use their property for a limited amount of time each year. In the case of Pacaso owners, each stay is limited to 2-14 days. As discussed above, in the Ewing v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea case, the California Court of Appeal found that short term rentals would affect the essential character of a neighborhood and the stability of a community. The Court noted that “[s]hort term rentals have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry. They do not participate in local government, coach little league, or join the hospital guild. They do not lead a Scout troop, volunteer at the library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor. Literally they are here today and gone tomorrow—without engaging in the sort of activities that weld and strengthen a community.” This same problem is present with time-share uses. Each co-owner is in the unit on a short-term basis, and without the time to participate in the types of activities or build the relationships that create the fabric of a community. At the April 28, 2021 council meeting several Pacaso co-owners spoke of their experiences in St. Helena. All of them spoke of their affection for the community and the traditions they had established, but these were centered on attending local events and visiting shops, restaurants and wineries. These types of transactional activities are all beneficial to the City’s local economy and are what the City hopes to see from visitors to the City, but it is not the type of community involvement described in the Ewing case that binds and strengthens a residential community. Given the City’s desire to strike a balance between the demands of the City’s visitor and tourist economy, and retaining its small town character and quality of life, the City has an interest in maintaining housing stock in its residential districts for long-term residents who will engage in the community in the manner described by the Court in Ewing, to the betterment of the entire community.
C.Proposed Amendments to the Time Share Ordinance
The proposed Ordinance would make certain changes to the City’s Existing Time Share Ordinance, as described below.
Agenda Item #11.1.
1.Findings and Establishment of New Chapter
The proposed Ordinance includes detailed recitals and findings describing the policy bases for the City’s regulation of time share uses. The findings are consistent with the findings made as part of the original Time Share Ordinance, but more detail has been added. The policy bases for the proposed Ordinance are discussed in the sections above, and further discussion is not necessary here.
The proposed Ordinance also relocates the restrictions on time share uses to its own chapter at Chapter 17.138. The Time Share Ordinance is currently located in Chapter
17.112, General Site Design and Development Standards. City staff believes that with the added level of detail in the Proposed Ordinance, these provisions merit being located in a separate chapter, and has changed the location of the Timeshare Ordinance accordingly.
2.Definitions
The Proposed Ordinance amends the definitions that are used to define time share uses, with the new definitions set forth in Section 17.138.020. The new definitions are modeled on the definitions utilized by the state to regulate time-shares in the Vacation Ownership and Time-Share Act of 2004 (Bus. & Prof. Code §§11210¬11288), but are modified somewhat to better apply in the land use regulation context.
The new ordinance includes a number of definitions that work in concert to define a timeshare use. The ordinance defines a “time-share use” as the use of one or more accommodations, or any part thereof, as part of a time-share property pursuant to a timeshare plan. An “accommodation” is defined in this Chapter to include a range of residential units that could potentially be used for time-share purposes. The types of residential units that can be accommodations are listed at the beginning of Section
17.138.020 in the proposed ordinance. A “time-share plan” is defined in the ordinance, and generally includes any arrangement, plan, scheme or similar device whereby a purchase receives the right to exclusive use of the accommodation, whether through the granting of ownership rights, possessory rights or otherwise, for a period of time less than a full year during any given year. A “time-share property”, in turn is defined as one or more accommodations that are subject to the same time-share plan together with any property rights that are appurtenant to the accommodations. A “time-share instrument”, is the document or documents that create or govern the operation of the time-share plan.
Therefore a time-share use is the use of a residential property that fits within the definition of an “accommodation” under the ordinance, pursuant to a ”time-share plan”, which grants each owner of the time-share property exclusive use of the property for a certain period of time each year, but not the full year.
Agenda Item #11.1.
It is important to note that not all properties with multiple owners or owned by business entities (such as LLCs) would constitute a time-share use under these definitions. The definitions focus on the manner in which the accommodation is used, not how it is owned.
A time-share plan allows each owner exclusive use of the property for a specific period of time. This manner of use prevents the property from being used for long term residency, and leads to the continual cycling of visitors through the property and the more intense, constant vacation oriented use that the ordinance seeks to limit in residential districts of the City.
A property that is owned by a group of friends or extended family members, whether through a separate business entity or otherwise, will not necessarily mandate that only one owner will be able to use the property at a time. The more formal arrangement found in time-share uses increases the intensity of use, in that each individual time-share owner cycles through the property, whereas families or friends are more likely to use the property together or in groups leading to less transition in the residential neighborhood. The more formal relationship, use of professional property managers and rights to exclusive use found in timeshare uses contributes to the commercial character of the property, with added traffic due to the more frequent turnover of visitors and more frequent cleaning and inspection between each user, which is common for a commercial vacation property, but not for a home owned by family or friends.
3.Enforcement
The new ordinance additionally adopts a new enforcement structure for the City timeshare restrictions, modeled on the City’s short-term rental ordinance. The ordinance prohibits both the use of accommodations for time-share use, and the advertisement of accommodations for time-share uses. This will better allow the City to prevent time-share uses in residential neighborhoods before they occur. The proposed Ordinance also outlines the process that will be used to enforce this new Chapter, again based on the City’s existing short-term rental regulations. This approach has proved to be effective in enforcing the City’s short-term rental regulations, and will help the City to take a more preventative approach to enforcing its time-share regulations as well.
4.Time Share Uses in Service Commercial and Central Business Districts Finally, while the City’s existing Time Share Ordinance did prohibit time-share projects within certain types of residential dwelling units within the City, it does not make distinctions based on the various zoning districts of the City. Given that the primary concerns and impacts of this use arise from the high intensity use of property that negatively impacts the residential character of residential districts within the City, this use may not have the same impacts in commercial districts where visitors can be closer to the amenities in the City that cater to visitors. The proposed new ordinance would allow time-share uses in the Service Commercial and Central Business Districts as conditional uses, provided that such time-share uses would be limited to accommodations in upper floors in conjunction with a mixed use project, would be required to provide at least one parking space for accommodations of two or fewer bedrooms, and at least two parking Agenda Item #11.1.
spaces for accommodations of three or more bedrooms, and would be subject to such other conditions imposed by the City has part of the conditional use permit process. As part of the application for a time-share use, the applicant would have to provide specific information including a management plan and specific information on the accommodations and any ancillary uses. The City would then review the application process in accordance with its normal process for review of conditional uses. This would allow the City to address potential impacts associated with this use, similar to the approach that the City uses with hotels and other lodging accommodations in these districts.
Consistent with this change, the proposed ordinance updates the list of conditional uses in both the Service Commercial and Central Business Districts to include time share uses as regulated by the new Chapter 17.138.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance at its regular meeting of March 1, 2022. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance. City staff has made minor, non-substantive edits to the proposed ordinance that went to the Planning Commission to correct typographical errors, and to add the sections amending the list of conditional uses in the Service Commercial and Central Business Districts.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 17.138 "Time Share Uses" and Sections 17.138.010-
17.138.060 to Title 17, Zoning, of the St. Helena Municipal Code, amending sections
17.48 (Central Business) and 17.52 (Service Commercial) and Deleting Section
17.112.130 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1-St. Helena Time Share Ordinance-Final
Attachment 2-Community email comments
Agenda Item #11.1.
- 1 -
CITY OF ST. HELENA
ORDINANCE NO.
ADDING CHAPTER 17.138 “TIME SHARE USES” AND SECTIONS 17.138.010 –
17.138.060 TO TITLE 17, ZONING, OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING SECTIONS 17.48.030 AND 17.52.030 AND DELETING SECTION
17.112.130 OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Helena is a popular tourist destination, known for its scenic Napa Valley location, exceptional wineries and restaurants, historic Main Street and small town agricultural character; and
WHEREAS, preserving the rural, small town quality and agricultural character of the City of St. Helena has been a focal point of the City’s land use planning for decades, and remains a primary focus in the City’s 2040 General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Helena stands out in the Napa Valley for its ability to attract visitors while also supporting the needs of its resident population. Maintaining the balance between the quality of life for residents and those who work in the City and the visitors who help to sustain the City’s tourist economy is key to maintaining a sustainable community and a stable economy; and
WHEREAS, the City values and welcomes all visitors to the City and recognizes their contributions to the City’s economy, but finds that in order to maintain the City’s long term viability as a community where people not only come to visit, but also live, work and contribute to the long term betterment of the community through participation in the City’s schools, local community groups, civic government and local serving businesses, the City must maintain a balance between residential land uses and visitor serving uses; and
WHEREAS, the City’s existing housing stock is significantly impacted, with demand outweighing supply, resulting in extremely high housing prices as detailed in the accompanying staff report. A limited supply of suitable vacant land, exorbitantly high land costs, and limitations in the City’s existing infrastructure, among other factors, have limited the construction of additional housing in the City of St. Helena; and WHEREAS, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the current median household income in the City of St. Helena is $90,031, while the estimated value of owneroccupied housing units from 2015-2019 was approximately $1,112,100, with current real estate listings suggesting that prices are increasing significantly, meaning that homes in the City are not affordable to the median household in the City; and WHEREAS, as noted in the St. Helena Housing Update Report prepared for the City in April 2018, “St. Helena has more local jobs than people in the labor force, demanding large numbers of commuters to fill local jobs. Workers commute daily into Agenda Item #11.1.
- 2 -
St. Helena, many because there is no local housing that is affordable at the incomes that they make. Thirty six percent (36%) of St. Helena households cannot afford market rents while seventy percent (70%) of St. Helena households cannot afford to purchase a home. Paramedics and preschool teachers cannot afford St. Helena’s market rents.
Teachers, registered nurses, winery and hospitality managers and nonprofit directors cannot afford homeownership in St. Helena”; and
WHEREAS, the City has made significant efforts to address the need for housing at lower income levels, of which recent examples include providing assistance to local nonprofit Our Town St. Helena for the Brenkle Court development, a mutual self-help housing development providing homeownership opportunities to eight low income working families, as well as the acquisition of a home located at 963 Pope Street using a charitable sale strategy. The property at 963 Pope Street is being developed with an additional four units to provide a total of five new affordable rental units in the City; and WHEREAS, further, in connection with the recently approved Farmstead lodging project, the City negotiated with the developer to contribute one million dollars toward the purchase of property to be used for the development of not less than twenty units of housing that will be affordable to low and very low income households, and an additional two million two hundred thousand dollars to be used more generally toward the development of affordable housing in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City additionally provided substantial financial assistance to the recently completed Turley Flats Affordable Housing development, which provides eight units of rental affordable housing in a three story building located at 1105 Pope Street; and
WHEREAS, these efforts have helped to address the City’s need for affordable housing, but have also highlighted the challenge of providing sufficient housing to meet demand, particularly at more affordable levels, due to the significant costs of acquiring housing or land for the development of housing in the City and the limited supply of such land; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of existing residential units to uses other than longterm residential use will further reduce the City’s existing long-term housing supply, causing further imbalance between the demand for housing in the City and the existing supply, not only altering the character of the City’s residential neighborhoods, but also presenting further challenges to the City’s efforts to provide affordable housing within the community; and
WHEREAS, the City additionally has, for many years, worked to preserve its existing housing stock for long term residential use, both to maintain the character of its residential neighborhoods and prevent residential districts from becoming visitor and tourist serving districts, and to ensure that it would not be converted to uses other than long-term residential uses; and
Agenda Item #11.1.
- 3 -
WHEREAS, to this end, in 1982 the City adopted Ordinance No. 82-07, which prohibited the creation of time-share projects as a means of ownership of any singlefamily, two-family or multiple-family dwelling or any apartment house within the City.
This restriction was imposed because the conversion of residential dwelling units to time-sharing projects would eliminate residential dwelling units that would otherwise be available for long-term occupancies, and were inappropriate in residential areas because those uses have the same character as commercial hotels, motels and other transient occupancy uses, and would result in increased traffic generation and multiple occupancies disturbing the peace and quiet of residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the City has historically not received complaints about time-sharing uses in residential neighborhoods. Commencing in 2020, however, the City began receiving complaints regarding single family homes in the City that were being sold and/or marketed as “fractional ownership” or “co-ownership” homes, wherein each buyer may acquire a one-eighth interest in a limited liability company that will own the home. Under the structure pursuant to which these dwelling units are marketed and sold, each owner gets a one-eighth share along with the right to use the home for oneeighth of each year indefinitely. During each owner’s usage period, that owner has exclusive use of the entire house. All rentals are prohibited; only owners and their guests are permitted to use the house. Each owner pays regular assessments to fund the operating costs of the home and maintenance reserves; and WHEREAS, this arrangement, which provides that each purchaser is entitled to exclusive use of the property for a fixed number of days each year, is a “time-share plan” as defined in Business and Professions Code section 11212, and a “time share program” as defined in Section 17.112.130 of the City’s Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City has received numerous complaints regarding these properties, including parking impacts from large numbers of people staying at these properties; excessive noise late into the evening due to frequent outdoor parties; traffic due to frequent visitor turnover; traffic, noise and parking concerns due to frequent visits from cleaning, landscape maintenance and pool cleaning services that come to the properties in between each stay to prepare the home for the next guest; and an inability to maintain lines of communication to set community expectations with the users of the unit, as visitors only frequent the homes for short term stays of 2 to 14 days; and WHEREAS, the complaints received by the City are reflective of the reasons that the City prohibited time-share projects within residential areas of the City. The timeshare uses provide a short-term, high impact vacation oriented use of the property, where those that buy into the time-share use the home for entertaining and short term stays while visiting restaurants, wineries and other tourist oriented locations in St.
Helena and the surrounding Napa Valley; and
WHEREAS, this high impact use, combined with the frequent turnover and commercial management of these properties is not consistent with the residential districts in which they are located. It is commercial in nature, in that these time-share Agenda Item #11.1.
- 4 -
uses are structured as a short-term, tourist oriented, visitor serving use of the subject properties. The use of these properties as time-shares adds excessive noise and traffic to residential districts by using these properties for high impact tourist oriented uses more appropriately located in commercial districts of the City; and WHEREAS, expanded use of residential properties for time-share uses will further reduce the availability of housing stock for long-term residential use, and create a new demand for time-share uses of residential properties; and WHEREAS, this encroachment of tourist oriented, visitor serving uses in residential neighborhoods will not only compromise the residential character of these areas, but will also further increase the costs for housing in the City, undermining the City’s efforts to provide a balance of housing for all income levels in the City; and WHEREAS, the City’s authority to enact zoning ordinances is based on the powers accorded cities and counties under the State constitution to make and enforce police regulations. This police power grants the City broad authority to regulate the development and use of real property within its jurisdiction to promote the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with this authority, the City Council desires to reaffirm its restrictions on time-share uses in residential areas, and to update the language of the Zoning Code to provide consistency with the terminology used to define time-share uses in State law. Further, the City desires to provide greater clarity as to the zoning districts in which time-share uses are permitted as conditional uses, and the standards pursuant to which they will be reviewed in those zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena held a duly noticed public hearing on March 1, 2022, as required by law to consider all the information presented by staff, and public testimony presented in writing and at the meeting; and
WHEREAS, on March 1 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena recommended that the City Council adopt this Ordinance amending the Municipal Code as described herein by a 5-0 vote; and
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, accepting testimony from the public, and discussed the proposed amendments and staff’s recommended approval of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the General Plan goals, policies and implementation programs as the Ordinance will continue to preserve the agricultural, small town character of the City of St. Helena; will preserve the City’s residential districts for residential uses; and will help to preserve the City’s existing housing stock for long term residential uses, to avoid further exacerbating the existing impacts on the City’s housing supply; and
Agenda Item #11.1.
- 5 -
Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of St. Helena does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitals are hereby incorporated as though set forth in this section.
SECTION 2: Chapter 17.138 and sections 17.138.010 – 17.138.060 are hereby added to Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code, to read as follows:
“Chapter 17.138
TIME-SHARE USES
17.138.010 Purpose and Findings
17.138.020 Definitions
17.138.030 Time-share Uses Restricted to Service Commercial (SC) and Central Business (CB) Districts
17.138.040 Application Process and Development Standards
17.138.050 Violations, Enforcement and Civil Penalties
17.138.010 Purpose and Findings
A. There is a critical shortage of permanent, long-term housing in the City of St.
Helena.
B. A limited supply of suitable vacant land, land values, and market demand for land for other uses, including but not limited to use of property for vineyards, have limited the construction of additional housing in the City of St. Helena.
C. St. Helena is a popular tourist destination known for its scenic Napa Valley location, exceptional wineries and restaurants, historic Main Street and small town agricultural character.
D. The City of St. Helena stands out in the Napa Valley for its ability to attract visitors while also supporting the needs of its resident population. Maintaining the balance between the quality of life for residents and those who work in the City and the visitors who help to sustain the City’s tourist economy is key to maintaining a sustainable community and a stable economy.
E. Time-share uses are not an appropriate land use in the City’s residential districts due to the multiple occupancy of time-share properties, the short-term, tourist oriented use of such property and commercial management of time-share facilities, all of which Agenda Item #11.1.
- 6 -
create increased traffic generation, excessive noise, disruption to residential communities through commercial-level maintenance of the time-share facilities, and therefore are appropriately confined to commercial zoning districts.
F. Conversion of permanent housing to time-share facilities removes existing housing units from the City’s existing stock and exacerbates an already severe housing shortage.
G. It is therefore in the public interest to prohibit conversions of existing housing units into time-share facilities, as to do so eliminates needed housing stock by diverting those units to a tourist-oriented, commercial use.
17.138.020 Definitions
For purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning respectively ascribed to them by this Section:
“Accommodation” means any dwelling unit, apartment, condominium or cooperative unit, hotel or motel room, or other structure constructed for residential use and occupancy, including but not limited to a single family dwelling, or unit within a two family dwelling, three family dwelling, multiple family dwelling, or townhouse dwelling as defined in Section 17.04.160.
“Building” shall have the meaning ascribed to it by Section 17.04.160. “Dwelling unit” shall have the meaning ascribed to it by Section 17.04.160. “Managing entity” means the person who undertakes the duties, responsibilities and obligations of the management of a time-share plan.
“Person” means a natural person, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, joint venture, association, estate, trust, or other legal entity, or any combination thereof. “Time-share instrument” means one or more documents, by whatever name denominated, creating or governing the operation of a time-share plan and includes the declaration dedicating accommodations to the time-share plan. “Time-share interest” means the right to exclusively occupy a time-share property for a period of time on a recurring basis pursuant to a time-share plan, regardless of whether or not such right is coupled with a property interest in the time-share property or a specified portion thereof.
“Time-share plan” means any arrangement, plan, scheme, or similar device, whether by membership agreement, bylaws, shareholder agreement, partnership agreement, sale, lease, deed, license, right to use agreement, or by any other means, whereby a purchaser, in exchange for consideration, receives the right to exclusive use of an accommodation or accommodations, whether through the granting of ownership rights, possessory rights or otherwise, for a period of time less than a full year during any given Agenda Item #11.1.
- 7 -
year, on a recurring basis for more than one year, but not necessarily for consecutive years.
“Time-share property” means one or more accommodations subject to the same timeshare plan, together with any other property or rights to property appurtenant to those accommodations.
“Time-share use” means the use of one or more accommodations or any part thereof, as a time-share property pursuant to a time-share plan.
17.138.030 Time-share Uses Restricted to Service Commercial (SC) and Central Business (CB) Districts
Time-share uses are conditional uses within the City’s Service Commercial (SC) District and Central Business (CB) District, subject to approval of a conditional use permit applied for and approved in conformance with this Chapter. Time-share uses are not permitted in all other Zoning Districts in the City.
17.138.040 Application Process and Development Standards A. Application Process. Approval of a conditional use permit for time-share uses in the Service Commercial District or Central Business District shall be required in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.168. In addition to the application requirements contained in Chapter 17.168, an application for a time-share use shall be accompanied by the following documents which shall be subject to the approval of the planning director:
1. Management Plan. A management plan shall describe the methods employed by the applicant to guarantee the future adequacy, stability, and continuity of a satisfactory level of management and maintenance of the time share use.
2. Application Requirements. In addition to any application requirements established by this section and any other applicable requirements of this code, the following information shall be submitted as part of any application to develop or establish a time-share use:
a. Typical floor plans for each accommodation.
b. The phasing of the construction of the accommodations on the timeshare property, if applicable. c. A description of any ancillary uses which are proposed in conjunction with the time share use.
d. A description of the method of management of the time share use and indication of the management entity for the time-share property. e. Any restrictions on the use or occupancy of the accommodations.
Agenda Item #11.1.
- 8 -
f. Any other information or documentation the applicant, city staff or commission deems reasonably necessary to the consideration of the time-share use, including any required environmental documents.
B. Development Standards and Operational Requirements. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the following conditions must be met by any time-share use in any conditionally permitted zone. Additional requirements may be attached to a conditional use permit or development agreement if found to be necessary to assure that the time-share use meets the intent of this chapter:
1. Time-share uses developed in the Service Commercial District or Central Business District shall be limited to accommodations in upper floors in conjunction with a mixed-use project.
2. No existing residential use in the Service Commercial or Central Business District shall be converted to a time-share use.
3. Development Standards. The time-share use shall comply with all development standards for the zone in which it is located.
4. Parking. Parking shall be provided as follows:
a. For accommodations of two or fewer bedrooms, one parking space shall be provided for each accommodation.
b. For accommodations of three or more bedrooms, two parking spaces shall be provided for each accommodation.
4. Modification or Waiver of Standards. The planning commission may modify or waive one or more of the regulations contained in this section if it determines that strict compliance is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section.
17.138.060 Violations, Enforcement and Civil Penalties
A. Any responsible person, including but not limited to an owner of a time-share interest, management entity, agent, or broker who uses, or allows the use of, or advertises or causes to be printed, published, advertised or disseminated in any way and through any medium, the availability for sale or use of an accommodation in violation of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor for each day in which such accommodation is used, allowed to be used, or advertised for sale or use in violation of this chapter. Such violation shall be punishable pursuant to Chapter 1.20.
B. Time-share use, and/or advertisement for time-share use, of an accommodation in violation of this chapter is a threat to public health, safety or welfare and is thus declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance. Any such nuisance may be abated and/or restored by the enforcement official and also may be abated pursuant to Chapter 1.12, except that the civil penalty for a violation shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Each day the violation occurs shall constitute a separate offense.
Agenda Item #11.1.
- 9 -
C. Any responsible person who violates this chapter shall be liable and responsible for a civil penalty of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per violation per day such violation occurs. The city may recover such civil penalty by either civil action or administrative citation. Such penalty shall be in addition to all other costs incurred by the city, including without limitation the city’s staff time, investigation expenses and attorney’s fees.
1. Where the city proceeds by civil action, the court shall have discretion to reduce the civil penalty based upon evidence presented by the responsible person that such a reduction is warranted by mitigating factors including, without limitation, lack of culpability and/or inability to pay. Provided, however, that in exercising its discretion the court should consider the purpose of this chapter to prevent and deter violations and whether the reduction of civil penalties will frustrate that purpose by resulting in the responsible person’s enrichment or profit as a result of the violation of this chapter. In any such civil action the city also may abate and/or enjoin any violation of this chapter.
2. Where the city proceeds by administrative citation, the city shall provide the responsible person notice of the right to request an administrative hearing to challenge the citation and penalty, and the time for requesting that hearing. a. The responsible person shall have the right to request the administrative hearing within forty-five (45) days of the issuance of the administrative citation and imposition of the civil penalty. To request such a hearing, the responsible person shall notify the city clerk in writing within fortyfive (45) days of the issuance of the citation. The appeal notification shall include all specific facts, circumstances and arguments upon which the appeal is based. b. The city manager is hereby authorized to designate a hearing officer to hear such appeal. The city hearing officer shall conduct a hearing on the appeal within ninety (90) days of the request for the hearing unless one of the parties requests a continuance for good cause. The hearing officer shall only consider those facts, circumstances or arguments that the property owner or responsible person has presented in the appeal notification. c. The hearing officer shall render a decision in writing within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the hearing. The hearing officer shall have discretion to reduce the civil penalty based upon evidence presented by the property owner or responsible person that such a reduction is warranted by mitigating factors including, without limitation, lack of culpability and/or inability to pay. Provided, however, that in exercising its discretion the hearing officer should consider the purpose of this chapter to prevent and deter violations and whether the reduction of civil penalties will frustrate that purpose by resulting in the property owner’s or responsible person’s enrichment or profit as a result of the violation of this chapter.
d. Any aggrieved party to the hearing officer’s decision on the administrative appeal may obtain review of the decision by filing a petition for writ Agenda Item #11.1.
- 10 -
of mandate with the Napa County superior court in accordance with the timelines and provisions set forth in Government Code Section 53069.4. e. If, following an administrative hearing, appeal, or other final determination, the owner of the property is determined to be the responsible person for the civil penalty imposed by this section, such penalty, if unpaid within forty-five (45) days of the notice of the final determination, shall become a lien to be recorded against the property on which the violation occurred pursuant to Chapter 1.12. Such costs shall be collected in the same manner as county taxes, and thereafter the property upon which they are a lien shall be sold in the same manner as property now is sold for delinquent taxes.
D. Any violation of this chapter may also be abated and/or restored by the enforcement official and also may be abated pursuant to Chapter 1.12, except that the civil penalty under Chapter 1.12 for a violation shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000.00).
E. Each day the violation of this chapter occurs shall constitute a separate offense.
F. The remedies under this chapter are cumulative and in addition to any and all other remedies available at law and equity.”
SECTION 3: Deletion of Section 17.112.130
Section 17.112.130 is hereby deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 4: Amendment of Section 17.48.030
Section 17.48.030 is hereby amended to add the following text as a separate line immediately following “Theaters, movie and legitimate;”, and immediately prior to “Tobacco/smoke shop, including the sale of tobacco, tobacco and/or nicotine products and equipment for smoking;”:
“Time share uses, pursuant to Sections 17.138.030 and 17.138.040;” SECTION 5: Amendment of Section 17.52.030
Section 17.52.030 is hereby amended to add the following text as a separate line immediately following “Theaters, movie and legitimate;”, and immediately prior to “Tobacco/smoke shop, including the sale of tobacco, tobacco and/or nicotine products and equipment for smoking;”:
“Time share uses, pursuant to Sections 17.138.030 and 17.138.040;” SECTION 6: CEQA
Agenda Item #11.1.
- 11 -
This ordinance was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines (the Guidelines), and the environmental regulations of the City. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance is not subject to CEQA because the adoption of this ordinance is not a “project” pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
Moreover, under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 6: Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its final adoption, and a summary of this ordinance shall be published once with the names of the members of the Council voting for and against the ordinance in the St. Helena Star, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of St. Helena.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the day of , 2022, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the day of , 2022, by the following vote:
Mayor Ellsworth: _____
Vice Mayor Dohring: _____
Councilmember Chouteau: _____
Councilmember Hardy: _____
Councilmember Hall: _____
APPROVED:
___________________________________
Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF ST. HELENA
___________________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #11.1.
From: Mari Jansdotter <[email protected]>
To: Anna Chouteau
Sent: 6/8/2021 7:25:45 AM
Subject: Re: [External] 1242 Madrona pictures Re: Pacaso Thank you, Anna, for your kind reply.
I'm sorry you all have to go through this lawsuit by Pacaso and hope the judge find in your favor.
I have a follow—upquestion. Do you know who I should address it to? The Pacas house building on Kearney across the street from us has installed lights under the roo?ine that are on all night and installed in such a Way they shine straight into our house, especially my daughter's bedroom.
Are there any ordinances that I could refer to that help me ask them to please cover / redirect those lights or at least turn them off after 10 pm‘?
Thank you!
Best
Mari
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 7:12 AM, Anna Chouteau
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Mari,
Thank you for your email. I forwarded your email to City staff about the speci?c permitting questions.
Our planning director is out of the of?ce this week.
We are defending ourselves in the lawsuit. Our City Attorney ?led an anti-SLAPP motion that is now public information and the hearing will be coming up this summer.
All my best,
Anna
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 7, 2021, at 6:01 PM, Mari Jansdotter <[email protected]> wrote:
To clarify, do they have permit allowing the new structure going up at l242 Madrona? The rendering from original sales listing shows a trellis (see attached) but a structure looking like a liVe—on unit close to (and taller than) the Oak neighbour‘ fence is being built. See pictures from today <202l0607_l75202jpg>
<202lO607_l752l9jpg>
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 5:38 PM, Mari Jansdotter
<[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for doing all you can to stop Pacasof
I am not o.k. with Pacaso’s Violation of city ordinance and I support the city‘slegal ?ght.
In addition to signing the petition and putting a No Pacaso sign outside my home, what else can we on the community do to help, please?
Agenda Item #11.1.
I ?nally afforded my dream home after moving several times the last 10 years, only to a year later have 4! of these Pacaso ‘time share’ like vacation LLC/commercially owned houses popping up in my neighborhood.
I'm devastated - this is supposed to be a residential areal! I am very worried about my family's safe & peaceful living situation, now that I'll be impacted by 4 of these houses (one across the street) — each with 8 groups of owners and/or their guests circulating in and out all year round.
Many Pacaso have 4 bedroomsthat easily accommodate 8+ people, and pool in the backyards with outdoor areas for gatherings/parties.
It's a huge difference having your neighbor throwing an occasional party versus non—stop having a new group of people next door visiting for thier token time of vacation / partying.
Pacaso houses also come with increased parking problems as these properties tend not have garages or driveways (often transformed into addl bedroom).
Specifically would you mind looking into building code the one at 1242 Madrona / Oak? Looks like they're adding a guest house with vary narrow set back from the oak side neighbor. is that an approved building? Maybe they're getting around that by making it a partial garage? Add to that, the 4 Pacaso houses are all in close proximity of RLS with kids wa1king/ biking to and from school.
What are the safety concerns that this is imposing with new people circulating in and out all year round and increased car traffic? Worst case scenario there will be a liability situation that will put a stop to Pacaso.
Please, please stop Pacaso before we even get close to that.
Respectfully,
Mari Jansdotter
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Agenda Item #11.1.
PACASO = PARTY HOUSES!
Debbie Polverino 5/11/2021
To the members of the City Council. In the recent Napa Register article, Austin Allison agrees that short term rentals are a problem, that commercial Timeshares are a problem- that’s not what Pacaso is he said. Yet, Pacaso listed the Valley View Street “Pool House” as a 1/8 Timeshare Ownership property. After the city was notified by several concerned citizens and myself regarding “timeshares” listed for sale in residential zoned areas, Pacaso changed its online marketing from “1/8 Timeshare Ownership to 1/8 Shared Ownership. Owners who purchase still share the property in available time slots just like a timeshare.
Living next door to a Pacaso home has been living next door to a full-time party house! The constant music with speakers blaring, loud conversations until 2 am and later, noise violations along with excessive vehicles parked on the street or in front of our homes. The additional noise of gardeners blowing dirt and leaves into our yard, Pool service, catering trucks, housekeeping scheduled more frequently. Open houses are held with statements made with, “this is a great place for pool parties and entertaining, it’s a perfect place to bring friends and extended family.” This home on Valley View Street was a weekend getaway home for the previous owners who had loud weekend parties. Itwas a constant nightmare and all the homes nearby complained. Now the property has been split up to 8 owners. The Saint Helena P.D. has already been to this home at least 3 times for noise violations after 10pm. There must be a way to stop these repeated violations and offenders.
Pacaso’s has written policies for its owners on their website that they must adhere to. No parking on the street, no parties, no noise after 9pm to 7am, no dogs over 80 pounds. Policies have been broken several times already from each group including the Pacaso’s owners.
According to Mr. Allison, Saint Helena is running a dishonest campaign against Pacaso. Pacaso claims discrimination of outside ownership which is not the case. As we all know we welcome all people the opportunity to live in our quiet small town. Pacaso selling an 1,100 square foot home which is smallest of any home on our street for $1.7M is dishonest in my opinion. This is what he says is affordable housing for second home buyers who are paying in full, plus maintenance fees? When commercial companies buy a dozen homes in Napa Valley and plans additional purchases to be split up to 8 shares it is not committed to the community or our quiet neighborhoods. Zoning is in place for a reason. Commercial companies operating in full time residential streets should adhere to the rules that are in place and only buy up in areas where other vacation homes are abundant and not a disruption.
What happens should we decide to sell our home? How will people feel about buying next door to a home owned by 8 owners who don’t know each other and all come at different time slots for as little as 2 days at a time? We will have to disclose this information. This put a negative mark on our property. This is something Iwant you to think about! Say NO to Pacaso! Thank you.
Agenda Item #11.1.
From: Amy Caldarola <amyca|@comcast.net>
To: Paul Dohring
CC: Anna Chouteau; Lester Hardy; Eric Hall
Sent: 5/23/2021 1:04:24 PM
Subject: [External] Picaso
Dear Council Members,
This is Amy Caldarola here. I am very concerned about Picaso buying property in our residential neighborhoods under the guise of democratizing home ownership. This is not affordable housing. Picaso properties are time-shares and short-term rentals which violate municipal code provisions. The presence of these properties in residential neighborhoods is inappropriate and will degrade the quality of life. It has already done so with Picaso’s property on Valley View; those neighbors are suffering with loud noise, music, and parties that go on to after midnight; even calling the police does not seem to stop them. I support the city in doing everything possible to defeat them. I also support a counter law suit against them if it makes legal sense. With that said, we are fighting for the soul of our community and this needs to be a number one priority.
Picaso is in Napa, Sonoma, Healdsburg, and probably will move into Calistoga and Yountville. This is a fight worth fighting. It might be helpful for the affected counties and municipalities to join their resources together to oppose them. Please outline for me what the city is doing and what the plan is.
Thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to keep me informed on this very important and pressing issue. We must act now!
Sincerely,
Amy Caldarola
Agenda Item #11.1.
May 11, 2021
Good evening City Council members. My name is Clare Barr and l live in St. Helena. Tonight l would like to speak about the Pacaso Vacation Share homes.
l listened carefully to the public comments of Pacaso Share owners made at our last City Council meeting. They sounded sincere in their desire to be a part of the St. Helena community. The problem is they have bought into a business model that will make that nearly impossible.
To be a part of a real community means forming bonds with neighbors.
How can that come about with a home next door that has possibly dozens of strangers coming and going, with visits no longer than 14 days at a time, a few times a year? And with the likelihood of visits gifted by other share owners, and a cleaning crew who appears before each arrival, the number swells. With the result that a Pacaso share owner, is viewed by their neighbors as only one in a sea of unfamiliar faces.
And though the intentions of some of the share buyers might be good, can we say the same for all 7 of the remaining shareowners? One of whom might gift a weekend to his brother for a blowout bachelor party? Or as was the case in Napa, a single shareowner who conducted retreats in which close to a dozen visitors would come and go within one stay. That particular shareowner was charging her guests, which is a complication on an entirely different level.
Pacaso would have us believe that their sharebuyers are families who simply want a quiet, lovely getaway. But in actuality, a Pacaso home is built for partying. Their own website says of one offering ”This home takes entertaining to new heights”. And yet another listing says that a Agenda Item #11.1.
particular home ”has been completely re—imagined to accommodate families, friends, and large groups”. Another listing offers "year round fun and adventure”.
Now, none of us resent the visitor who wants to have fun. Indeed, our beautiful valley is an ideal place for celebration. And we all do that on occasion. But when you realize that every single visitor owning a Pacaso share has been wooed with the promise of “fun and adventure” within a house ”built for entertaining”, then you have the possibility of major partying with each and every visitor, all crammed into stays that last from 2-14 days. This is transient occupancy in our residential neighborhoods that cannot possibly be regulated under the Pacaso system.
There is a reason why we have ordinances in place that designate where tourists and visitors can stay. it allows us to appreciate our visitors, giving them the space and accommodations in which to party and celebrate, while we ourselves can conduct our daily lives in the sanctuary of our residential neighborhoods. Which in turn, are places where we know our neighbors so well that we trust them with our keys, our pets, and even our children. With whom we share joy and sometimes sorrow, and whom are quick to lend a hand in times of crisis.
And if we have learned anything in the last few years, it is that the ability to know and rely on our neighbors is the very thing that sustains our community through thick and thin. A vacation home with a parade of visitors coming and going, does not belong in our residential neighborhoods. Please Say No to Pacaso.
Clare Barr
St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.
From: Beth Gray <[email protected]>
To: Geoff Ellsworth
Sent: 5/22/2021 3:01:13 PM
Subject: [External] Pacaso
Dear Mr. Mayor,
I am writing to express my strong opposition against the in?ltration of Pacaso and their timeshare strategy in the city of Saint Helena. As a full-time resident here in the city (and as your neighbor), I find it atrocious that the city has not been able to stop the in?ltration of this community destroying business model. This business will do nothing but destroy our community. As an example, I witnessed the dumping of water from the pool into the creekbed from a home purchased by Pacaso right on the corner of Sy1vaner/Reisling as they began to redevelop the home and expect to list it as fractional ownership. Illegal dumping of the pool water with disregard to any of the environmental consequences demonstratestheir utter lack of care about the community. Similarly, hearing from the neighbors who live next to a Pacaso home on Valley View, I can only shake my head and sympathize with the poor neighbors having to deal with multiple cars showing up and loud music being played at all hours.
One of the reasons I moved from San Francisco to Saint Helena was to enjoy the quiet sounds of nature, the beautiful outdoors — not to listen to vacationers who only want to party for the two weeks that they have their time in the home. Please protect our city from these timeshares.
I understand the city is being sued. I hope that we can collectively put the necessary resources behind this lawsuit to stop Pacaso from any more timeshares in St. Helena.
Respectfully,
Beth Gray
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Richard Seiferheld <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 11:56 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Timeshare Ordinance
I urge the City Council to pass the proposed ordinance to protect our community from the proliferation of time share like uses in our town's residential areas;
Richard Seiferheld
[email protected]
707 695 0915
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Clare Barr <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 2:38 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] City Council meeting 3/22/22 Timeshare Ordinance Revision Dear City Council,
Please do the right thing for our town and pass the revised timeshare ordinance. We know that a very deceptive push poll regarding Pacaso has been sent to residents, and that it might have resulted in pressure from those who are either disinformed, or represent (and/or benefit from) Pacaso in some capacity. But please know that the majority of St.
Helena residents realize this is the best thing for our town, and that it must be passed if we are to sustain our community.
Also know that your attention to this very important matter is much appreciated.
Thank you,
Clare Barr
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Ester Akersloot <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 10:36 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I support passing of the revised ordinance to prevent our city from further exploitation by transient occupancy and timeshare models like Pacaso.
Best Wishes,
Ester Akersloot
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Mariam Hansen <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2022 1:10 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Pacaso
Dear City Council Members,
I urge you to pass the new timeshare ordinance to protect St. Helena’s meager housing stock. Its outrageous what Pacaso is trying to do here, in Napa, Sonoma and nationwide.
I have received an email survey asking for my opinion of Pacaso, Zillow and Airbnb.
Today we received a telephone survey call and told them our negative opinions in very clear terms. Also today we received a mailer paid for by Pacaso, questioning the activities and motives of all of you, our elected representatives!! I only wish we knew the status of our lawsuit against Pacaso. Do we have a chance of winning? Will they have to pay our costs if we win??
Your supporter,
Mariam Hansen
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Susan McWilliams <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2022 11:35 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public comment on timeshare ordinance In the days before tonight’s vote on the amended timeshare ordinance, Pacaso launched a comprehensive disinformation campaign, hounding St. Helena residents with spurious flyers, robo calls, texts and fake phone polls.
They obviously fear you will give unanimous approval to the timeshare ordinance amendment that will prevent the further intrusion of Pacaso vacation timeshares into our neighborhoods.
We hope you will do just that. Thank you in advance for supporting St. Helena residents.
Susan McWilliams
St. Helena
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Pat Kenealy <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022 1:09 PM
To: Geoff Ellsworth; Paul Dohring; Anna Chouteau; Lester Hardy; Eric Hall; Public Comment Subject: [External] March 22 City Council vote on Time Share Ordinance Thanks to you and the Saint Helena Planning Commission for drafting a strong ordinance to protect Saint Helena from predatory time share operators like Pacaso.
I urge you the Council to pass the Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Patrick Kenealy
2995 Spring Street
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Pat Smidores <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022 2:31 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Comment on Timeshare Ordinance
Dear St. Helena Council Members,
I live in the County of Sonoma but have followed the lawsuit Pacaso filed against the City of St. Helena very closely. It is stunning that they not only sued the City, but individuals as well. Who does that? Greedy corporations looking to scare other cities, counties, elected officials and staff from standing up to them.
As you know, they are losing that fight. Palm Springs and South Lake Tahoe have both sent Cease and Desist orders and the City of Sonoma changed their Municipal Code to keep Pacaso out.
Other Cities are organizing in areas where Pacaso is intruding ‐ Park City, Santa Barbara, Maui and more.
The recent antics of Pacaso with the unsolicited text messages and spam mailers to St Helena residents are proof that Pacaso is running scared.
My neighbors and I support you wholeheartedly in approving this update to your ordinance! Sincerely,
Pat Smidores
Stop Pacaso Now
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Glacier <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022 2:47 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] In favor of Updating and tightening the ordinance.
Dear City Council members,
After receiving unsolicited mail from Pacaso I am even more outraged and disgusted by this Company! I honestly don’t understand why anyone would get involved in a business model like this. They are the worst type of timeshare. Not being attached to a resort, there is no fall back when there is storm damage, power outages, smoke in the air for shareholders to go someplace else.
Do people who pay for a share understand they are responsible for 1/8 of all of damages? 1/8 of any lawsuit the home is involved in? On their own to work together when Pacaso’s Management company goes out of business? And remember, they were anonymous shareholders they don’t even know who else is involved in the deal. It promises to be a hot mess!
Please do everything you can to ensure we keep Pacaso out of St Helena! M.K.Sims
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Philip Norfleet <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022 3:11 PM
To: Geoff Ellsworth; Paul Dohring; Anna Chouteau; Lester Hardy; Eric Hall; Public Comment Subject: [External] Pacaso
To the City Council and staff:
I was recently made aware of the ordinance that is being considered that will revise our city timeshare definitions and thus prevent the expansion of the Pacaso project further into our town.
I'd like to state that I am very much against Pacaso's presence within our community and wholeheartedly support the efforts of the City Council in modifying our ordinances in order to prevent their expansion.
Respectfully submitted,
Philip Norfleet
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Rita Hellewell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022 3:26 PM
To: Public Comment; Geoff Ellsworth; Paul Dohring; Anna Chouteau; Lester Hardy; Eric Hall Cc: Christopher Hellewell
Subject: Fwd: [External] March 1 Meeting - Timeshares and Pacaso Hi ‐ in addition to my message below which you all kindly acknowledged, I wanted to add that the tactics used this week by Pacaso show a blatant disregard for the wishes of the townspeople ‐ as usual. The text messages and leaflets, along with the Napa Valley Register op ed publication and their website rebuttal are more examples of Pacaso using their money and influence to try to get what they want despite the law. Also, they neglect to mention they are suing the town, not the other way around...they are the cause of wasting money that could be better used. I'm not saying all those other issues don't need solving, but we all see right through Pacaso tactics. We support the ordinance and hope you pass it on Tuesday.
Thanks,
Rita & Chris Hellewell
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Rita Hellewell <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:03 AM
Subject: March 1 Meeting ‐ Timeshares and Pacaso
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Hellewell <[email protected]>
To the planning commission:
Thank you for publishing the draft ordinance on the agenda for March 1st. My husband and I are full time residents of St. Helena, and we've been extremely worried about the encroachment of Pacaso in our neighborhoods, and the flagrant flouting of the zoning ordinance regarding timeshares. As indicated in your research, Picasso is clearly a timeshare and has no business locating in our residential areas. I know that the city had a reluctance to draft the ordinance because of the legal case pending. We felt helpless as we continued to see work and marketing in our neighborhoods. We're so glad that despite the legal case, the city has now taken the step to clarify the original ordinance. We are in favor of its adoption. As for the commercial timeshare use, as long as this is regulated and goes through an approval process, we are not opposed to it.
My only comment is that I hope that not clearly defining fractional ownership as timeshare may come back to bite us. I know that you did except LLCs that are owned, for example, by families. I understand why and I don't disagree in general, but I hope this does not in any way create a loophole. Perhaps you can address that as well as the question below in the meeting.
Thank you for acting now. I wish that we'd done it sooner. I live on a street with a Pacaso house on the corner of Sylvaner and Reisling (and we nearly had 2 on Sylvaner). What will happen to these properties that have already been either partially or totally sold as timeshares? Is there anything that can be done retrospectively? Thanks for your attention,
Rita & Chris Hellewell
1575 Sylvaner Ave.
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Connie Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022 10:58 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] City Council Meeting March 22, 2022/Revised Timeshare Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I encourage you to pass the revised timeshare ordinance. It is an excellent document that will protect our residential neighborhoods from further encroachment from companies like Pacaso and their unregulated, transient occupancy timeshares.
The majority of St. Helena residents support enforcement of our zoning ordinances and do not approve of Pacaso’s weak attempt to change the narrative with last‐minute misinformation, including flyers, phone calls and home solicitations.
Many residents are concerned that Pacaso was able to obtain private cell phone numbers for a deceptive push poll. And I don’t have to remind you that Pacaso initiated the lawsuit against our City.
I appreciate the time and effort it took to craft this revised ordinance. Please keep the welfare of the local residents front and center when considering passing this ordinance.
Thank you.
Connie Wilson
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Leslie Stanton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 12:54 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: [External] 11.1 Consent
Dear Members of the SH City Council ‐
Thank‐you for taking steps to clarify St Helena's Transient Occupancy Ordinance and stopping businesses like Pacaso from operating in our neighborhoods. It is a REAL issue.
Sincerely, Leslie Stanton
Agenda Item #11.1.
March 21, 2022
Dear City Council,
Please adopt the ordinance adding Chapter 17.138 "Time Share Uses" and Sections
17.138.060 to Title 17, Zoning of the St. Helena Municipal Code, amending sections 17.48.030 (Central Business) and 17.52.030 (Service Commercial) and Deleting Section 17.112.130 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.
This ordinance will help us to maintain the character of our residential neighborhoods and protect us from future attempts at inappropriate land use.
The elitist bullying tactics currently being employed by Pacaso in an effort to dupe unwitting citizens is a perfect example of why we don’t want this particular company doing business in our town.
Thank you for working hard on behalf of our lovely community.
Sincerely,
Nancy Dervin
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: William hayne <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 5:17 PM
To: Geoff Ellsworth; Paul Dohring; Anna Chouteau; Lester Hardy; Eric Hall Cc: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: [External] Proposed City Ordinance to Prohibit Fractional Ownership Housing Dear City Council Members:
As long-time St. Helena residents, we have watched the unfortunate evolution of our city’s neighborhoods as they have been beset by Pacaso fractional ownership homes. Our friends living near these houses are plagued by the late-night weekend and also weekday party activity, increased traffic, parking issues, water conservation violations, and a plethora of surprising concerns they’d never imagined in their worst nightmares.
The Pacaso business model is literally and figuratively a “Silicon Valley Disruptor” concept on so many negative levels. Their vacation home “democratization” claim would be laughable if it weren’t so damaging to the availability of full-time housing stock suitable for our current middle-class families.
Pacaso won’t be the last of these models as more are most certainly gearing up, disguised under new-and-different umbrella real estate terminology. The challenge will be to stay ahead of all of these.
We urge the City Council to change/add whatever language necessary in our city ordinances to prohibit fractional vacation homes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Alston & Adrian Hayne
1832 Sulphur Springs Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Cell: 707-328-3463 (Adrian)
707-815-8720 (Alston)
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: ben weakley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 4:22 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Pacaso
Hello,
My name is Ben and I live in St. Helena and work in Napa in the restaurant industry. 10 empty homes on a single street within a single block. What community is Pacaso fracturing? One perhaps that existed 50 years ago? On that same street a well‐known vineyard owner has a home that sits empty until his out‐of‐town guests come to visit. How do I know? The license plates ‐ always a different state. But this is the St. Helena we are ok with right? One in which vineyard owners can purchase downtown houses and use as a guest house for their friends? How hypocritical.
Around us are 5 homes under construction, and one of them owns the house behind us. Hmmm and the owners don't live in either of them. No children in schools from either address.
A real estate agent in the area owns one of the homes on the block and lives a block up from that home. Hmmm. No children in schools from that home.
Another three homes on the block, no children in schools from those homes either. Where was the voice of the concerned citizens then when these homes were sold as second and third homes just a few years ago?? Two homes on Madrona Avenue recently sold and were remodeled and placed back on the market two years later ‐ almost across the street from one another ‐ for an additional million more each. And you want to ban Pacaso for buying homes and putting people in them throughout the year?? So we can actually begin to put people back in homes and in our shops and stores??
City Council, I ask that you do not ban Pacaso and stop fighting a perceived problem and spending more of our tax dollars on this ridiculous issue. Pacaso is not a timeshare. It's a non‐issue. The real issue is residents pay far too much in water, far too few local shops cater to locals who don't live in multi‐million dollar homes and frankly the town is boring.
Stopping Pacaso isn't going to solve your issues, but can hinder progress that will support an empty neighborhood, empty storefronts and empty promises to your voters who support you.
Ben Weakley
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Colin Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 9:20 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comment for Ordinance Adding Chapter 17.138 "Time Share Uses" and Sections
17.138.060 to Title 17, Zoning of the St. Helena Municipal Code, amending sections 17.48.030 (Central Business) and 17.52.030 (Service Commercial) and Deleting...
To City Council,
I would like to add this comment for the record in support of Pacaso's business in the city of St. Helena and Napa County altogether. Embracing residents in our community that have disposable income and a vested interest in becoming a part of our community is the prime clientele we need at our restaurants, wineries and local downtown businesses. As a former General Manager for notable wineries and a current restaurant manager for two local eateries both here in St.
Helena and in Napa, I urge the city to embrace Pacaso and its owners in our community. Local businesses are facing real threats like staffing and affordable housing; a long time issue for Napa Valley, but now more than ever with the Pandemic and last 5 years of firestorms. We are at a fork in the road; consider modernizing our housing utilization and work with all stakeholders, including Pacaso to find a real solution to re‐energizing a community, or allow a few voices (who don't speak for the majority of our community) to keep the status quo? Let's be rational and less emotional about decisions that affect everyone including downtown businesses that hope to prosper from MORE patrons. I just read the flyer this weekend Pacaso mailed me about all of this over 4 homes?! Let's bring them to the table and discuss how we can all work together to build a better community for everyone. They have Pacaso homes across the US. Whatever they are doing seems to be working ‐ why not in St. Helena? Colin Wright
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Jacqueline Hilger-Rolfe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 9:43 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] STOP Picasso
Dear City if St. Helena;
Please STOP Picasso from making our town into a soulless town. Timeshares take away housing for people who want to live and work here 100 percent of the time. Most importantly, their kids will never be able to attend our schools. We will become a ghost town with a bunch of part time partiers in our small neighborhoods.
Encourage Picasso to purchase the sadly burned down Calistoga Ranch and turn that back into a timeshare community.
I support our council in forbidding timeshares in St. Helena! Jacqueline Hilger‐Rolfe PhD
St. Helena Resident
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Mark Schneidman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 9:38 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Pacaso
Hello,
Please keep up the fight to stop Pacaso from changing the character of single family residential neighborhoods and preventing buyers from buying their dream house.
There is very little inventory and they push out ‘mom and pop’ buyers.
Thank you,
Mark Schneidman, GRI
REALTOR
[email protected]
Cell/Text 805‐452‐2428
Listen to Real Estate Talk Radio: http://blog.radiorealestate.com "Goodness is the only investment
that never fails"
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties
3868 State St
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
CalDRE 00976849
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Nancy J Brandl <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 9:39 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Vote yes tonight on revised ordinance Please know that YOU ALL have my full encouragement and support to vote for the city ordinance which strengthens St Helena‘s opposition to timeshares, as well as partial home ownership such as Picasso. We need all of you to support this community as a place to live, not vacation. Please vote yes on this ordinance.
Sincerely,
Nancy Parrish Brandl
1096 Crane Ave.
St Helena California
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Sherri Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 10:17 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public comment on timeshare language changes To the St. Helena City Council Members,
First, I want to thank you for bravely taking the initiative to modify the St. Helena City ordinances to more clearly define what timeshare ownership is, in order to protect our residential neighborhoods from encroachment by this sort of property. It is unfortunate that this Council action has been made necessary by entities such as Pacaso, which have sought to skirt the current law with no regard for residents by establishing several nuisance properties in St. Helena which the neighbors will now have to cope with into the foreseeable future. This, followed by deep pocket ligation against the City, and most recently, a mailbox campaign with a laughable flier chastising the Council for lack of fiscal responsibility. If the threat of timeshare encroachment into our neighborhoods wasn't so serious, the latest Pacaso PR campaign would be hilarious.
My goodness, who is the genius employed by Pacaso behind that one? I'm sure you have each heard from the large number of my fellow St. Helena residents who, like me, are opposed to the establishment of timeshare properties in our neighborhoods. This type of property will do nothing to support the fabric of our community: the schools, community service groups, youth organizations. Thanks again to you and your staff in advocating for the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Sherri Kelly
Meadowcreek Circle
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Beth Milliken <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 3:03 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Timeshares in St. Helena
I write to express my strong support of the ordinance that will manage timeshares in our community. In St.
Helena we already face a housing shortage, and the new business model which Pacaso has introduced not only drives up the price of homes in our town, but in so doing it also puts them out of reach to people who live and work in our community. We have something very special here in St. Helena, and if we are to preserve its unique character we must ensure that homes here are sold to a single owner, who will care for the home and engage with our community in a much more meaningful way than someone who owns a fractional ownership ever could or would.
Thank you for your courage in moving to manage this type of fractional home ownership. I truly appreciate you taking this on, particularly in the face of so much disinformation coming from a financially powerful company.
Again, we very much have so much to protect here in our St. Helena community, which all of us are fortunate enough to call home.
Very sincerely,
Beth
Beth Novak Milliken
President & CEO
SPOTTSWOODE ESTATE VINEYARD & WINERY
1902 Madrona Avenue • St. Helena CA 94574
707/963-0134, x116 • spottswoode.com
Please paws before printing. – Riley
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Chris Koch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 11:26 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Pacaso
Please support putting the brakes on PACASO. This business model destroys neighborhoods. And they are using very scummy tactics.
We all want St Helena to succeed in its efforts to stop these guys.
Thank you.
Chris Koch
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Janis Watkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 3:41 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Pacaso
Thank you, St. Helena councilmembers, for your plan to regulate the Pacaso business model.
I live in Healdsburg, another tourist destination. We share your concerns about Pacaso’s impact on local housing, residents, and quality of life. Our small town character, housing and small local‐serving businesses are already under severe pressure from tourism. Pacaso would exacerbate this trend. Pacaso is soliciting Healdsburg residents with mailings; we feel our town is under threat.
Pacaso is equivalent to a vacation timeshare, and its business model has numerous impacts, as do various other businesses, partnerships and vacation rentals. A civilized society needs reasonable regulation. Indeed, it thrives on it.
But, singularly, Pacaso claims it cannot be regulated as a vacation business.
Thank you for your reasonable regulatory approach. I hope we will adopt it in Healdsburg.
Janis Watkin, Healdsburg
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Kelly Brophy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 10:53 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comments
To whom it may concern,
We are full time homeowners in St Helena and are adamantly opposed to timeshares polluting our beautiful community. Their parties, loud music, lack of care, with random people vacationing in our quaint residential neighborhood is an insult to the foundation of our community: a public disgrace. Safety is of paramount concern as we will never know who is coming and going with multiple owners who have the ability to rent or donate their time to others. This is a catastrophe in my opinion.
Please take your commercial enterprises elsewhere.
Picasso does not belong in St Helena!
Yours truly,
Kelly Brophy
Kelly Brophy, Realtor®
GRI, CIPS ‐ Lic. #01097795
Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty ‐ Wine Country Region 1485 1st Street | Napa, CA | 94559
707.301.3777 | [email protected]
KellyBrophy.goldengatesir.com
See our current Bay Area Market Report!
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Lynda Burton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 2:20 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Anti-time share ordinance
Thank you for your efforts to strengthen the St. Helena Ordinance regulating Pacaso‐like time shares.
Lynda Burton
St. Helena, CA
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Mary Ann Souza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:58 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Picaso and other Timeshare ownership Dear Council Members:
Have been following the business model regarding this timeshare ownership and very against it as it relates to our residentially zoned neighborhoods. Since this is a business model it should not be allowed in a residential zoned area. Thank you for your time
I also do not like Picaso tactics of trying to intimidate the council with the nasty postcard sent to my address. They seem to have deep pockets.
‐‐
Compass
Mary Ann Souza - Broker Associate
m 707-326-8178 DRE #00605390
www.compass.com
To help protect your privacy,
Microsoft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: susan kenward <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:03 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Pacaso
I am very much against Pacaso and any other similar business strategies presence within our community and wholeheartedly support the efforts of the City Council to revise and modify our timeshare/fractional ownership ordinances in order to prevent their expansion in our city. thank you for your consideration,
Susan Kenward
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Andi Werlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 3:54 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Pacaso
Council members:
As a Sonoma resident, I am very concerned about the effect your action tonight will have on the future not only of Sonoma, but all of Wine Country and beyond. I know you have heard all the arguments pro and con, but I want to add my thoughts:
We live in the Springs, in a neighborhood where most of the homes are occupied by full-time homeowners. On the street behind our backyard, there are 2 vacation rentals that are frequently rented out. The noise and lack of concern for the residents around them, and that includes residents within a 1/4 mile of these homes, is exactly why Pacaso should not be allowed to do business in our neighborhoods. Their business tactics alone should raise alarms at what kind of "homeowners/managers" they would be.
Please stop Pacaso tonight! Strengthen the regulations and approve the changes made by the Planning Commission! Thank you.
Andrea
Andrea Werlin
Agenda Item #11.1.
Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 22 Mar 2022
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Subject: Discussion and Consideration of Recommended Alignment of the Napa Valley Vine Trail Corridor Through the City of St.
Helena
CEQA
Determination:
Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Preya Nixon, Asst. to the City Manager
Reviewed By: April Mitts, Administrative Services Director Approved By: James C. McCann, Interim City Manager
BACKGROUND
The Napa Valley Vine Trail is envisioned as a 47-mile Class 1 mixed-use path for pedestrians and cyclists that will run the length of the Napa Valley (Calistoga to American Canyon) and connect to the Vallejo ferry terminal in Vallejo, providing a crucial link to the City of San Francisco and larger Bay Area. The proposed project is to construct a bike and pedestrian trail adjacent to the State Route (SR) 29 corridor which will encourage bicyclists and pedestrians to take alternative modes of transportation.
The project will enhance the accessibility and connectivity of the community in surrounding neighborhoods and will eventually complete all segments of the 47-mile Vine Trail planned for the region. Up Valley areas currently lack significant alternative transportation and recreational infrastructure and these improvements will promote using transit, biking and walking. The project has broad based community support from a coalition representing over 20 private and public sector organizations, all involved in its planning, design and funding.
Multi-modal transportation including bicycle facilities is not new to the St. Helena community. In fact, the City's General Plan in the Circulation Element (Figure 5.5) references the Vine Trail and anticipates that the Vine Trail might be established in the Agenda Item #12.1.
future through the City in different class facilities including Class I, II, III, IV or Bicycle Boulevard paths/lanes/facilities.
When planning and establishing bicycle facilities (including a regional trail like the Vine Trail), different considerations need to be made whether the facility is through a new community, open land, over/adjacent to rail or highway or even through a 125 year+ built community, like the City of St. Helena. Many opportunities, conflicts, physical limitations, and competing interests exist. Modern Class I or Class 4 paths can be difficult to introduce in an older built-out community. Still, a continuous linked alignment for a regional facility is possible, with care and respect of existing uses and needs. The Vine Trail's vision aims to have Class I or IV facilities where conditions permit, which provide a separated facility for users.
Because the Vine Trail segment known as the St. Helena Vine Trail will also include a portion of trail north of Yountville through Pratt Street located in Napa County, the County will be taking the lead on environmental review of the construction and operation of this segment under the California Environmental Quality Act, seeking funding from the Action Transportation Program’s Recreation Trail Program funds, and considering any approval of this segment.
At the January 11, 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council received an update on the Vine Trail alignment study and directed staff to do the following:
1. Conduct outreach meetings
2. Add an additional corridor to study on Mills Lane
3. Bring the feedback from the outreach meetings to the ATSC for a recommendation on alignment. During the outreach process, it was determined that there would be a benefit to include the Parks and Recreation Commission in this formal recommendation
City staff has conducted the requested outreach (discussed below) which includes the additional inclusion of the Mills Lane route option. The Mills Lane option was studied by the City's engineering firm BKF, who also studied the existing options.
Connection to the City Council Workplan:
The Napa Valley Vine Trail is item 1C in the City Council's adopted workplan "Complete analysis of St. Helena Vine Trail route options and facilitate Council decision making on preferred route" under the Citywide Goal 1: "Improve and maintain safe and reliable City infrastructure with a commitment to environmental stewardship, public health and public safety."
DISCUSSION
Per City Council direction, the following meetings were conducted to solicit feedback from the community. Feedback from the community outreach meetings are included as Attachment 6 and Attachments 6.1-6.51.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Zoom meetings
• Thursday, February 10 at 11:00 a.m. to Noon
• Thursday, February 10 at 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
In person
Drop-in Format Open Houses (Outside) – Napa Valley College Upper Campus (1088 College Avenue)
• Saturday, February 12 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. (Spanish interpretation available)
• Wednesday, February 16 from Noon to 1:00 p.m.
Additionally, there was a concerted effort to include the business community in these meetings and the City worked in collaboration with the Chamber of Commerce to promote opportunities for feedback.
Survey: The full survey results are attached to this item as Attachment 3 and Attachment
4. In addition to the meetings, the City created a survey instrument via Survey Monkey that was available from February 10, 2022 to present. A total of 6 questions were asked, with an optional demographic question at the end. The survey was an opportunity for community members to share their feedback on the four different alignment options, plus the opportunity to indicate their comfort level with each alignment. A question asked respondents to choose their preferred alignment, with an option including "none of these are my preferred route".
Between February 10 and February 28, 2022 the City received a total of 420 responses which were provided at a Special Joint Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee (ATSC) and Parks and Recreation Commission. Since that time, the City has received an additional 72 responses. Table 1 provides a summary of the total number of survey responses received at the time the staff report was due.
Table 1 - Summary of Survey Responses
February 10 - February 28, 2022
Special Joint Meeting
Agenda was published on February 28, 2022
February 10 - March 9, 2022
City Council Report submitted for
review March 9, 2022
420 responses 492 responses
This survey is available on the City’s website on a page created specifically to include Vine Trail information. This page includes: a link to the survey, a video to the public workshop held on February 10, 2022, links to previous presentations and staff reports, and information on how to provide feedback via public comment for both the Special Joint Agenda Item #12.1.
ATSC and Parks & Recreation Commission meeting held on March 2, 2022 and the March 22, 2022 Regular City Council meeting.
The overall feedback and concerns from the community are summarized as follows:
There is community support for the Vine Trail, but there are concerns about physical impacts of various potential alignment and segments of the trail—including the loss of parking and impact on residences and the business community (especially on Oak Avenue); the introduction of potentially incompatible high volume/high speed bike use in residential and congestion industrial or commercial areas; the adverse effects on circulation and neighborhood convenience and character/Quality of Life by virtue of change to a potential One-Way traffic flow on Church Street; the impact on the Safeway site circulation and the general delivery truck flow; the safety of cyclists turning while turning onto and off of Highway 29; and the cost and competing needs for limited resources in the community including on going maintenance needs.
Recommendation from the Special Joint Active Transportation and Parks and Recreation Commission Joint Meeting held on March 2, 2022 via Zoom (Joint Meeting). A copy of the Agenda from the joint meeting is attached to this item as Attachment 2.
A component of the outreach included taking the feedback from the community and presenting it at an ATSC meeting. It was determined that, due to the strong community interest, the Parks and Recreation Commission should be included and a Special Joint Meeting was held on March 2, 2022. At this meeting, BKF Engineers, City staff, and the Vine Trail representatives presented the four alignment options. The options presented were:
1. Oak Avenue via Mitchell to Adams
2. Oak Avenue via Spring Street to Adams
3. Along Main Street, Pope and Church Street from Mitchell to Adams
4. Mills Lane, to College Avenue, to Pope Street, to Starr Avenue, to Adams Street
Note: It is assumed there will be alignment up to Mitchell and/or Spring along Highway 29 (facility type not yet determined).
51 public comment letters were received and 13 members of the public provided public comment at the meeting. Preliminary designs included the use of the Safeway parking lot, in which Safeway has expressed concerns with.
The direction from the Council to the Committee was to provide a recommendation on a preferred alignment. During the Joint Meeting, a review of each of the four alignment options (above) was presented by BKF Engineering. Committee members discussed these options, asked for clarification as necessary, and following the discussion, committee members proposed an additional fifth option (below).
Agenda Item #12.1.
5. (A) Vine Trail comes north to Mitchell and stops. (B) Vine Trail comes south from Calistoga and stops at Adams or Hunt along Railroad ROW (Right of Way). (C) Add a Class III/II in between these two segments.
C refers to utilizing a class II or III facility which would exist in the right-of-way and therefore not impact the Safeway Parking lot. A Class II or III could take place in either on Church Street to Hunt or on Mitchell to Oak Avenue to Adams.
Following the discussion, a simple choice survey was created and taken by the 10 voting members at the Joint Meeting. This included the original four options plus the new fifth option. This selection process was not intended to produce a ranked choice vote, but rather reflect the clear preferred alignment segments.
The Joint Meeting committee members voted by indicating their preference for each option. Assistant to the City Manager Preya Nixon read the results aloud in terms of the alignment options that received the most results for each choice, and these results are highlighted in the motion. Following the reading of the results, Parks and Recreation Commission Member Christopher Warner moved that the results of the survey be provided as information to the City Council for consideration in connection with the alignment option for the Vine Trail. This motion was seconded by Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee member John Zimmerman. The motion and survey results are attached to this item as Attachment 5.
Late Communication
Earlier this week, the City received the a subsequent communication from the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition in which they propose modifications to the Church Street alternative. This modification is a result of the feedback received from residents, property owners and business who voiced objection to the one way configuring and have concerns regarding safety and traffic calming on Church Street. To address these concerns, the Vine Trail proposed the concept of a Bike Boulevard or Class III that would be configured to prioritize pedestrians and cyclists utilizing various traffic calming measures, thereby decreasing traffic speed and encouraging the use of the street to be for pedestrians and Agenda Item #12.1.
cyclists. The communication is attached. The modification have not yet been vetted by the City nor received the benefit of public input through the previous extensive outreach and discussion. Church Street is identified as a Class III Bicycle facility in the General Plan and the Vine Trail's alternative idea to designate it as a Bicycle Boulevard or Class III facility with bollards to reduce traffic speeds and volumes. While the proposal has not been reviewed by staff or public outreach advocacy groups, the use of Church Street as a Bicycle Boulevard or Class III facility as a segment of the Vine Trail is viable. On the surface, bollards or other measures to close the street to through traffic is highly problematic; alternate traffic calming measures would be preferred and such details would need to be discussed and determined during the next phases of design involving broad stakeholder groups.
Next Steps
It is expected that after selecting the alignment throughout the City, that that Vine Trail and the County of Napa will apply for the Active Transportation Program Grant. Based on the outcome, the specific class of bicycle facilities and details would be selected for the entire corridor and the necessary easements, engineering and traffic studies would be conducted regarding safety and conflict impacts attributed to Vine Trail including use on Church Street.
FISCAL IMPACT
For the purpose of this action, there is no immediate fiscal impact.
In addition to staff time, the City has spent a total of $43,000 towards alignment feasibility studies with BKF Engineering. However, the Vine Trail reimbursed the City $16,000 for the initial study.
Funding for the Vine Trail
The Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition and Napa County will be funding partners if the grant is awarded.
It is anticipated that the Vine Trail will be funded through the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Grant for the portion of the trail through the City of St. Helena. The probability of grant award is greater if a potential, though not necessarily final, path for a corridor through St. Helena is identified on the application. The County of Napa, in partnership with the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition (a non-profit), has notified the City they intend to submit their grant application in April 2022 (the grant application is due June 15, 2022). The Vine Trail will be including a portion of the trail north of Yountville through Pratt Street.
There will be costs in the establishment of the bike facilities in the City of St. Helena and those costs will vary depending on the alignment, right-of-way or easement acquisition/cost if necessary and level of improvements desired/approved. Presently, the design details or funding role for St. Helena are not yet known or agreed upon. As with Agenda Item #12.1.
any infrastructure project, there will be on-going costs relative to maintenance of any new facility, and the relative maintenance cost will vary depending on the type of bike lane facility and infrastructure improvements.
By making a recommendation on alignment, the City is not approving a project or amending the Bicycle Plan (a component of the General Plan). Any deviation from Figure
5.5 (Bicycle Network) in the adopted 2019 General Plan the Bicycle Plan will require amendment of the General Plan to do so.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Discussion and Consideration of a Preferred Alignment of the Napa Valley Vine Trail Corridor Through the City of St. Helena and Direction to Staff to Communicate Result of Consideration With Napa County and the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Vine Trail Presentation 22 March 22
Attachment 2 - Special Joint Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee and Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Agenda
Attachment 3 - Survey Results Questions 1-5 3.9.22
Attachment 4 - Survey Results-Question 6 3.9.22
Attachment 5 - Joint Motion from ATSC.PRC
Attachment 6 - Feedback from Virtual and In Person meetings - February 2022 Attachment 6.1.Anthony Micheli.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.2.Anthony Micheli2.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.3.Bobbi Monnette.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.4.Chris and Lauren Blanchard.Publiccomment Attachment 6.5.James Orr.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.6.Karen Aldoroty.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.7.Kim Phinney.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.8.Richard Shurtz.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.9.Richard Shurtz2.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.10.Tom Rinaldi.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.11.Ken Stanton.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.12.Jacqueline Hilger-Rolfe.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.13.Jacqueline Hilger-Rolfe2.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.14.JodieNieman.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.15.Tina Perrino.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.16.Deacon and Leslie Wightman .Publiccomment Attachment 6.17. NCBC.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.18. Ron Arata.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.19. Gisela Campagne .Publiccomment
Attachment 6.20.Stephanie Iacobacci.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.21.Nancy Tennyson.Publiccomment
Agenda Item #12.1.
Attachment 6.22.Mark Anisman.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.23.Mark Triska.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.24.Elaine Honig.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.25.Lorraine Barker.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.26.Catherine Courage.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.27.Brad Lee.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.28.Pam Smithers.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.29.Jay K. Smith.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.30.Matthew Kulczycki.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.31.Paul Wagner.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.32.Holly Ong.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.33.Dave and Karen Taylor.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.34.Annette Smith.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.35.Joseph Pramuk.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.36.Gerardo Capiel.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.37.Safeway.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.38.Jay Greene.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.39.Terry Tracy.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.40.Samantha Smith.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.41.Julie Herdell .Publiccomment
Attachment 6.42.Myrna David .Publiccomment
Attachment 6.43.Donald Hanson.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.44.Ride Napa Valley.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.45.Christopher Cole.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.46.Susette C Stickel-Rufer.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.47.Alan Johnson.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.48.Matthew Cook.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.49.Vivian L Robison.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.50.Charlie Crocker.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.51.Deborah Magowan.Publiccomment
Attachment 6.52 A.Ridgway.Publiccomment
Attachment 7 - Church Street Bike Boulevard Overview
Agenda Item #12.1.
Vine Trail Route Study
St. Helena Segment
City Council Regular Meeting
March 22, 2022
Agenda Item #12.1.
Caltrans Definitions
a) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Provides a completely separated facility for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow by vehicles minimized.
b) Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
c) Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic.
d) Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeway). Provides for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation/physical barrier required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic lanes 2 Agenda Item #12.1.
Trail Goals
• Class I Trail where feasible (Class IV with Sidewalk acceptable alternate)
• Direct route through town with proximity to in-town destinations such as Schools and Downtown
• Minimize conflicts with existing improvements
• Minimize parking loss
3 Agenda Item #12.1.
Studied Segments
4 Agenda Item #12.1.
Studied Segments
5 Agenda Item #12.1.
Oak Avenue
Mitchell to Adams
6 Agenda Item #12.1.
Oak Avenue
Spring to Adams
7 Agenda Item #12.1.
Church Street
Pope to Hunt
8 Agenda Item #12.1.
Agenda Item #12.1.
10 Agenda Item #12.1.
Review of Outreach Conducted
Zoom meetings
• Thursday, February 10 at 11:00 a.m. to Noon
• Thursday, February 10 at 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
In person:
• Drop-in Format Open Houses (Outside) – Napa Valley College Upper Campus (1088 College Avenue)
• Saturday, February 12 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. (Spanish interpretation available) • Wednesday, February 16 from Noon to 1:00 p.m.
Survey via Survey Monkey in English and Spanish
Special ATSC/PRC meeting
Agenda Item #12.1.
Parking Study Conducted by the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition Agenda Item #12.1.
Parking Study Conducted by the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition Agenda Item #12.1.
Parking Study Conducted by the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition Agenda Item #12.1.
Parking Study Conducted by the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition Agenda Item #12.1.
Parking Study Conducted by the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena
Special Joint Active Transportation and
Sustainability Committee and Parks and
Recreation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, March 2, 2022 @ 5:00 PM
PLEASE NOTE: Any person who wishes to speak regarding an item on the agenda or make a comment under the "Oral Communication" portion of the agenda may do so, but please observe the time limit of four minutes. Members of the public and other parties are welcome to email their comments to the Staff Liaison Preya Nixon at [email protected] This meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 54953 (as amended by AB 361) which authorizes teleconferenced meetings under the Brown Act during certain proclaimed States of Emergency. The Governor of California proclaimed a State of Emergency related to COVID-19 on March 4, 2020. This teleconferenced meeting is necessary so that the City can conduct essential business and is permitted under Government Code 54953 in order to protect public health and safety of attendees.
Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this meeting will be held via teleconference only, and will not be physically open to the public. Board, Commission and Committee members and staff will teleconference into the meeting by audio and/or video. The meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar.
Those members of the public wishing to participate must do so remotely via Zoom electronic meetings in the following ways; by either logging onto the Zoom link located on the meeting agenda (please download the app to your computer or mobile device) and enter the meeting ID or by calling a listed number and enter the meeting ID. Public comment for meetings will be accepted via email to [email protected]. All public comments must be emailed by two hours prior to the meeting. Emailed public comments will not be read out loud but will be publicly available and attached to the on-line agenda.
Please see the end of the agenda for detailed PUBLIC PARTICIPATION instructions.
Please click on the link below to join the Joint ATSC/PRC Special Meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89428222377
Or One tap mobile :
US: +16699006833,,89428222377# or +13462487799,,89428222377# Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099
Webinar ID: 894 2822 2377
International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kbMZ8Ar96 Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Agenda Item #12.1.
Committee Chair: Leslie Stanton, Vice Chair: Jeff Farmer Members: Glenn Smith, Madelyn Chandler, and John Zimmerman Alternate Members: Terra Sampson, Katherine MacDonnell
City Council Member Liaison: Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor
Staff Liaison: Preya Nixon, Asst. to the City Manager
Commission Chair: Matt Demchuk, Vice Chair: Tye Taylor
Members: Michelle Deasy, Christopher Warner, and Rebekah Weeman City Council Member Liaison: Eric Hall, Councilmember
Staff Liaison: Amalia Kulczycki, Interim Parks & Recreation Director
3. PUBLIC FORUM:
Under California law, public comments at special meetings are limited to subjects on the agenda only. Therefore public comment will take place during consideration of the item. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes.
4. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
4.1. Discussion and Consideration for a Recommendation on the Vine Trail Alignment through St. Helena
Prepared By: Preya Nixon, Asst. to the City Manager
Attachment 1: ATSC.PRC Presentation 2 March 22
Attachment 2: Staff Report
Attachment 3: Survey Results Questions 1-5
Attachment 4: Q6 Additional Feedback - Survey Monkey
Attachment 5: January 11, 2022 City Council Staff Report on Vine Trail Alignment
1.Anthony Micheli.Publiccomment
2.Anthony Micheli2.Publiccomment
3.Bobbi Monnette.Publiccomment
4.Chris and Lauren Blanchard.Publiccomment
5.JamesOrr.Publiccomment
6.Karen Aldoroty.Publiccomment
7.Kim Phinney.Publiccomment
8.Richard Shurtz.Publiccomment
9.Richard Shurtz2.Publiccomment
10.Tom Rinaldi.Publiccomment
11.Ken Stanton.Publiccomment
12.Jacqueline Hilger-Rolfe.Publiccomment
13.Jacqueline Hilger-Rolfe2.Publiccomment
14.JodieNieman.Publiccomment
15.Tina Perrino.Publiccomment
16.Deacon and Leslie Wightman .Publiccomment
17. NCBC.Publiccomment
18. Ron Arata.Publiccomment
19. Gisela Campagne .Publiccomment
20.Stephanie Iacobacci.Publiccomment
21.Nancy Tennyson.Publiccomment
22.Mark Anisman.Publiccomment
7 - 211
Agenda Item #12.1.
23.Mark Triska.Publiccomment
24.Elaine Honig.Publiccomment
25.Lorraine Barker.Publiccomment
26.Catherine Courage.Publiccomment
27.Brad Lee.Publiccomment
28.Pam Smithers.Publiccomment
29.Jay K. Smith.Publiccomment
30.Matthew Kulczycki.Publiccomment
31.Paul Wagner.Publiccomment
32.Holly Ong.Publiccomment
33.Dave and Karen Taylor.Publiccomment
34.Annette Smith.Publiccomment
35.Joseph Pramuk.Publiccomment
36.Gerardo Capiel.Publiccomment
37.Safeway.Publiccomment
38.Jay Greene.Publiccomment
39.Terry Tracy.Publiccomment
40.Samantha Smith.Publiccomment
41.Julie Herdell .Publiccomment
42.Myrna David .Publiccomment
43.Donald Hanson.Publiccomment
44.Ride Napa Valley.Publiccomment
45.Christopher Cole.Publiccomment
46.Susette C Stickel-Rufer.Publiccomment
47.Alan Johnson.Publiccomment
48.Matthew Cook.Publiccomment
49.Vivian L Robison.Publiccomment
50.Charlie Crocker.Publiccomment
51.Deborah Magowan.Publiccomment
JOINT MOTION FROM THE ATSC/PRC
5. ADJOURNMENT
The next regular Active Transportation Committee meeting is scheduled for April 6, 2022 at 5:00 pm at a location to be determined.
I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on the City website on February 25, 2022.
/s/ Preya Nixon
Preya Nixon, Asst. to the City Manager
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the meeting, please contact City Hall at (707) 967-2792. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). However, City staff will attempt to assist at any time with accessibility.
The ZOOM web link, meeting ID, and phone number will be listed at the top of the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee Agenda.
You will be required to enter the meeting ID, but there will be no Agenda Item #12.1.
password or participant ID.
How to Watch or Listen to Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee Meetings:
1. Watch and Listen on Zoom.us by clicking on the link in the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee Agenda
2. Listen only by calling the Zoom number listed on the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee Agenda
Watch the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee Meeting by Joining the Zoom Meeting:
1. By Computer, Tablet, or Smart Phone:
a. Before joining the virtual Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee Meeting, it is highly encouraged that you download the Zoom App. To sign up for your own free account, visit zoom.us/signup and enter your email address.
You will receive an email from Zoom ([email protected]). In this email, click Activate Account.
b. If you are logged into your account, Enter the Meeting ID listed on the Active Transportation and Sustainability Agenda.
If you have not created an account go to: https://zoom.us/join and enter the Meeting ID
c. Select if you would like to connect audio and/or video and tap Join Meeting.
d. For specific instructions for your device, go to:
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362193-Joininga-Meeting
2. Listen Only by Telephone:
a. Dial the number listed on the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee Agenda.
b. At the prompt, enter the Meeting ID provided on the top of the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee Agenda and Press #. A participate ID is not required.
c. To disconnect from the meeting, hang up the phone.
Ways to Provide Public Comment:
While attending the virtual Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee Meeting, the public will have the opportunity to provide live public comment during Public Forum and after each agenda item. When it is the appropriate time for public comment the Chair will verbally open public comment. At this time each individual is permitted 4 minutes to speak.
1. Send a Public Comment in Advance to
[email protected]
The easiest way to provide public comment is to email your public comment. Public comments may be emailed to
[email protected]. Please include in the subject line “COMMENT TO ATSC and the AGENDA ITEM”. Any public
comment is required to be submitted no later than 1 hour before the scheduled meeting and will be included as an attachment to the agenda.
2. Provide Comment through Zoom meeting from a computer, tablet, or smart phone
Agenda Item #12.1.
This option allows the public to virtually attend the meeting as a muted ‘attendee’ with no video or screen sharing capabilities. You will be able to see and hear those participating in the meeting, but they will not be able to hear you until the host unmutes you.
If you wish to provide public comment during a specific agenda item or during public forum, you can use the “raise hand” feature located in the control panel at the bottom of your screen. The icon is a small blue hand. In Windows you can also use the Alt+Y keyboard shortcut to raise or lower your hand. In Mac you can also use the Option+Y keyboard shortcut to raise or lower your hand.
The host will be notified that you've raised your hand and you will be placed in a queue with all incoming requests.
When it is your turn to speak, you will be notified that the host has unmuted you. To be removed from the queue, just click the ‘raise hand’ button again.
3. Call in to the ZOOM meeting from a cell phone or landline phone only
This option allows the member of the public with the opportunity to verbally participate in public comment.
If you wish to speak during public comment time dial *9 on your telephone.
The host will be notified that you would like to speak and you will be placed in a queue with all incoming requests.
When it is your turn to speak, you will be notified that the host has unmuted you. You may press *9 again if you wish to be removed from the queue.
You will be notified at the end of your statement that you have been muted.
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
1 / 21
62% 302
38% 187
Q1 Do you live within the City limits?
Answered: 489 Skipped: 3
TOTAL 489
62%
38%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
2 / 21
71.9% 353
60.5% 297
20.4% 100
18.9% 93
10.4% 51
4.7% 23
3.9% 19
Q2 For what purpose do you use the Vine Trail, or what would you use the Vine Trail for?
Answered: 491 Skipped: 1
Total Respondents: 491
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 For my child to bike to school safely 3/5/2022 10:24 AM 2 Bicycle 3/4/2022 11:33 PM
3 Visit new places - restaurants, wineries, places of interest 3/3/2022 3:59 PM 4 for health 2/25/2022 10:58 AM
5 Health...I have CAD so I need to exercise every day. 2/24/2022 6:42 AM 6 Its an activity for all the generations together . I am 68 (I have an electric bike ) My 37 yearold 2/23/2022 6:47 PM
71.9%
60.5%
20.4%
18.9%
10.4%
4.7%
3.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
For exercise
For fun
To run errands
I don't use
the Vine Trail
To commute to
work
Other (please
specify)
To commute to
school
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
For exercise
For fun
To run errands
I don't use the Vine Trail
To commute to work
Other (please specify)
To commute to school
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
3 / 21
son and his wife and their 2 kids all ride our bikes together . 7 recreational rides 2/23/2022 4:45 PM
8 I'm a senior and now drive to connect to the vine trail to have a safe place to cycle.
Connecting in town would be great
2/23/2022 3:57 PM
9 visit wineries 2/23/2022 3:40 PM
10 To stay off main thoroughfares for safety reasons 2/23/2022 3:37 PM 11 Want to get to Calistoga safely 2/23/2022 3:10 PM
12 Visit St. Helena from Napa 2/23/2022 3:09 PM
13 All the above 2/22/2022 9:59 AM
14 relaxing 2/22/2022 9:53 AM
15 For a safe way to traverse via bike or walking without having to risk traffic 2/21/2022 12:17 PM 16 Haven't had a chance yet but plan to soon 2/21/2022 12:09 PM 17 Family Time 2/21/2022 11:41 AM
18 gathering place 2/21/2022 11:21 AM
19 My family lives in St. Helena and I frequently visit, so I would use it to bike to downtown to shop, enjoy restaurants, etc. Also for work meetings in St. Helena 2/16/2022 9:41 AM
20 Reduce environmental impact by not driving as much as possible 2/14/2022 9:01 PM 21 Bicycle Tourism 2/12/2022 1:13 PM
22 Walk my dog 2/10/2022 8:56 PM
23 Walk / Bike to Restaurants and shops 2/10/2022 3:08 PM Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
4 / 21
Q3 How comfortable are you with each alignment option?
Answered: 479 Skipped: 13
25.11%
113
33.33%
150
11.33%
51 30.22%
136 450
23.40%
106
34.88%
158
11.04%
50 30.68%
139 453
33.69%
159
22.03%
104
13.35%
63 30.93%
146 472
31.21%
142
30.33%
138
13.63%
62 24.84%
113 455
30.22% 30.68% 30.93% 24.84%
11.33% 11.04% 13.35%
13.63%
33.33% 34.88% 22.03% 30.33%
25.11% 23.40%
33.69% 31.21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very comfo… Comfortable Not comfor… Not comfor…
Oak Avenue via
Mitchell to
Adams
Oak Avenue via
Spring Street to
Adams
Along Main
Street, Pope and
Church Street
from Mitchell...
Mills Lane, to
College Avenue,
to Pope Street,
to Starr Aven...
VERY
COMFORTABLE
COMFORTABLE NOT
COMFORTABLE
NOT
COMFORTABLE
AT ALL
TOTAL
Oak Avenue via Mitchell to
Adams
Oak Avenue via Spring
Street to Adams
Along Main Street, Pope
and Church Street from
Mitchell to Adams
Mills Lane, to College
Avenue, to Pope Street, to
Starr Avenue, to Adams
Street
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
5 / 21
31% 147
27% 130
22% 105
12% 56
8% 39
Q4 What is your preferred route?
Answered: 477 Skipped: 15
TOTAL 477
31%
27%
22%
12%
8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None of these
are my...
Along Main
Street, Pope...
Mills Lane, to
College Aven...
Oak Avenue via
Mitchell to...
Oak Avenue via
Spring Stree...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
None of these are my preferred route
Along Main Street, Pope and Church Street from Mitchell to Adams Mills Lane, to College Avenue, to Pope Street, to Starr Avenue, to Adams Street Oak Avenue via Mitchell to Adams
Oak Avenue via Spring Street to Adams
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
6 / 21
24% 120
24% 119
24% 118
17% 85
10% 50
Q5 Is it important for you to have access to the Vine Trail in St. Helena? Answered: 492 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 492
24%
24%
24%
17%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very Important
Not at all
Extremely
critical
Important
Moderately
Important
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Very Important
Not at all
Extremely critical
Important
Moderately Important
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
21 / 21
0% 0
2% 10
4% 19
5% 22
13% 63
23% 113
26% 127
27% 132
Q7 Optional: What is your age?
Answered: 486 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 486
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
Under 18 18-24 Prefer
not to
answer
25-34 35-44 65+ 45-54 55-64
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Under 18
18-24
Prefer not to answer
25-34
35-44
65+
45-54
55-64
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
1 / 14
Q6 Please share with us any additional feedback on the Vine Trail that you would like
Answered: 257 Skipped: 235
# RESPONSES
1 My family prefers the option that ends south of town and starts again at the north end of town.
It should not go through city streets and neighborhoods 2 Why not route it right on Zinfandel to the Silverado Trail, then back via Deer Park? Or, the other extremely obvious route would be right on Rte 128 where Rutherford Grill is, to the Silverado, then left via Deer Park. Much better for our small town that already has too much traffic.
3 How about the Vine Trail stopping at the South end of town and continuing at the North end of town.
4 Running the Vine Trail through any of St. Helena's small residential streets seems like a recipe for disaster for families, bicyclists, and the town in general. Why not end the trail before St.H and pick it back up just after St.H as I believe other towns do. 5 To be frank, our town doesn't have the space to add in this trail. This would eliminate vital parking spaces that are already in short supply. I think the trail is great for in between towns, but that doesn't mean we have to have them run through town. Perhaps a starting and stopping point on both ends of town? That way citizens and businesses won't be hurt. I'm sure Mr.
McMinn wouldn't want this trail running right next to his house. 6 Option B1 would be preferred, but the stop at the edge of downtown and pick up on the other side would be a good solution.
7 I think Oak Avenue is a terrible option, given the fact that the churches along the route hold services, weddings and funerals regularly and the elementary school is along the route as well.
Please find a route that doesn’t impact residents and businesses so much. 8 Should absolutely not go through Saint Helena. Congestion is constant especially during school pick up and drop off, removing a lane would cause absolute chaos for families taking their kids to and from different school. The schools would have to change their start and stop times to adjust for the increased time to get to siblings to different schools every day. Specific Vineyards should be compensated for the use of some of their property to have trail go through if having a vine trail is that important. Compensation should not be the responsibility of citizens via tax breaks or subsidies, it should end solely on fundraising and donations from those that are interested in having the trail.
9 There are so many important issues pertaining to the use of Church St. for the Vine Trail.
Safety is number one for the residents that live there. Logistics re traffic, trash pick up, residents pulling in and out of their driveways, delivery trucks and space for them to manuver and stop to deliver pkgs., residents living on the opposite side of traffic flow not being able to get to their home without making out of the way routes just to get to their homes. And the list goes on.
10 Stop the Trail south of town and continue it north of town. 11 Taking the Vine Trail through neighborhoods, particularly those with narrow streets is ludicrous.
Shunt the cyclists over to the Silverado Trail.
12 More info please I am concerned how trail will impact community 13 The section of Main from Crinella to Pratt is extremely dangerous now with the hotel turn lane and no parking on Main North from 1820 to Pratt. Would you consider routing cyclists down Park from Crinella to Pratt?
14 We have to message that this is for generations to come. Setting up the area better than what it is now. To many comments are about the now but the future transportation concerns need to Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
2 / 14
be addressed and executed so we can evolve with better modes af travel. 15 North of Yountville, the Vine Trail is poorly-conceived and executed. It has no place usurping already crowded streets in St. Helena.
16 It’s crazy!!! Don’t need to pass thru St H. Just restart in Krug Winery area. Don’t muck up St.
Helena
17 I believe having the trail along Oak would be the safer option and better serve the locals as well as visitors. Whether starting from Mitchell or Spring st. Kids will have a safer commute, visitors will be able to access storefronts easier. It may also help cut down on the Oak street traffic and people using Oak to bypass main st traffic, especially if part of Oak becomes one way.
18 I feel that the original survey was flawed and that while asking for public comment, the city and committee had already made a decision independent of feedback. Particularly independent of feedback from those in the community that their decision would affect most acutely. I feel as if this decision is being rushed, literally shoved down our throats and I’m not sure why. I realize grant timing is in the balance but CEQA review and environmental studies have yet to be conducted so seriously, there is time to make a decision that’s right for all citizens of Saint Helena, not just the most expedient decision. At the community Zoom meeting on 3/2/22, Mr.
McMinn actually said that some citizens will have to “sacrifice” for the greater good of everyone else! Is that really the message you want to send to your city? I wonder if he would feel the same if the vine trail was proposed to go directly in front of his house, right up to his driveway, his front yard and front door. While I do not speak for him, my assumption is he would not approve. Additionally, I wonder how he would react if he was one of the citizens in his town required to “sacrifice” his happiness, his peace and tranquillity, his convenience, his neighborhood accessibility, his community with his neighbors, his safety and the safety of his family and friends/colleagues, his property value, all against his wishes… all for the greater good of his city. My guess is not well. The Vine Trail would be a wonderful addition to Saint Helena and we welcome it! But, there is no need for it to come at the expense of all these proposed neighborhoods. They are all heavily trafficked and dangerous, and one is an actual tiny neighborhood that you’re proposing to eliminate. There are other options to consider, the GAP option being high on the list of community residents if you would only listen and consider it. I hope you will do so.
19 I find these routes very disruptive to the town of St Helena. I feel that we can not afford to lose even one parking spot in these proposed routes. I have supported the Vine Trail in many different ways via my winery, Whitehall Lane (wine donated, possible easements). If the Vine Trail moves forward within the city limits as proposed, I need to rethink my support of this project. Feel free to reach out to discuss - Katie Leonardini 20 No one route Vine Trail thru town. Instead, enhance existing street surfaces and bike routes within town for a diffusive flow.
21 Use trail access points on south & north side of town - do not disrupt street configurations within town as it’s already congested
22 As a long time resident. I feel the trail is wonderful! But when it arrives in St Helena it should end in town and pick up on the outskirts. Allow them to navigate town to perhaps have lunch or shop.
23 If it is out my back door, the peaceful & quiet that I purchased will be gone. 24 We would like to see a Vine Trail terminal at the Napa Valley College site. VT travelers should then cross St Helena on foot and the Vine Trail would resume north of town. We understand this strategy for the VT has been applied in the Oxbow area of Napa. St Helena city has narrow streets, congestion and unfortunately, traffic frequently moving at unsafe speeds in residential areas
25 I live outside of St. Helena and bicycle through probably, 3-4 times a month and a visual or map of your locations would help me as I’m not so familiar with the street names. Or provide a map alongside the questions. I often bike all the way through Main st. And have no issues. I’m an enthusiast bicyclist.
26 I have lived here for over 50 years, as a matter of fact I was born here. Please stop ruining my way of life and trying to turn my small town into a big city cluster. This town has already lost much of its small town integrity. Things occurring are making me rethink dying in the town I’ve Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
3 / 14
lived in all my life and moving to another location. The changes that have occurred and those I see coming like a freight train are extremely sad and disheartening. 27 Bypass town and run along river or Railroad tracks like between Yountville and Napa. 28 There needs to be funding planned to maintenance and cleaning of the trail 29 I like the idea of bringing tourist to enjoy our town in a way that does not disrupt our everyday life. However using these roads Adams, Oak, Pope This is where people are doing their pick up and drop off of kids. There is already enough hardship on Adams and Oak Avenue where the school is. It is also a huge hang out for our children getting out of elementary and middle school.
30 Put your bike trails in our state parks. I don’t want it on my street. Traffic is bad enough already.
31 get it together. St Helena is already in trouble for many reasons. this does not seem like a good plan for the small businesses on Adams either.
32 I would like to see you spend more money if necessary to not have it on busy streets with no detours
33 I would like St Helena to be a part of the Wine Trail, I have used it myself down to Napa via bike. However, the trail does not go through other towns, and instead follows route 29, or the train tracks. I believe it would be beneficial to have the trail stay on one side of St Helena Main Street , so that it does not cross in the middle of town. This would be disruptive to both residents and visitors of our town. Similar to Yountville, the wine trail does NOT cross into the town, but instead picks up outside of town, by their fire department. Thanks Cat and Pat 1685 Voorhees Cir & Mitchell Dr
34 You are once again taking away parking, adding to traffic congestion in a town where it is already difficult to park and get around. You keep approving housing (new construction) on Pope St. with no consideration for parking on a street we already can't park on. The trail should end at the south end of town and continue on the north end. This is so tiring! 35 Don’t have it run through downtown St Helena. There are not enough areas to park, you’re adding a nuisance for the homes around these proposed trail locations and traffic is already congested in these parts. Adding constant bicyclists and foot traffic is only going to make the situation worse. Also concerned about it being near schools and the safety of our children.
This is a community, the Trail south of us doesn’t run through a town like St Helena. 36 This needs to be safe for everyone
37 I support the Vine Trail but not negatively impacting our limited road system and community within our town.
38 If any part of Oak Avenue is used for the Vine Trail, trucks should not be allowed access to the street except for local deliveries. It is now used by truckers to by pass main street 39 This trail should not be on residential or surface streets in town. It should snake thru the vineyards, and you should do the necessary work to obtain easements from vineyard owners.
Putting this trail on residential surface streets interferes with parking, private life, the flow of the town and traffic. Be smart, don’t try to squeeze it in on the surface streets of our town 40 I am very much opposed to the Vine Trail negatively impacting residential and business district streets and parking within the city limits of St Helena. 41 Compromising St. Helena residents and traffic patterns is not a good idea. Commuting to work will be impeded.
42 Everyone already bikes to school or work locally if they can, but for most it's not practical.
There is no need to enter residential neighborhoods. Have the trail end at Sunshine's parking lot. Then bikers can use one of 3 crosswalks (Pope/Spring/Hunt) to cross the street and then bike over to the connection on the railroad tracks at Hunt/Railroad. We can't afford to lose any parking in this town, we have a parking crisis. How is allowing something that will likely be 90% tourist serving in residential neighborhoods consistent with the general plan? 43 Why not have the Vine Trail go up Sulphur Springs to Crane and Valley View and utilize/upgrade the current bike lane on Valley View? it can then cut across Hudson or Allen to Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
4 / 14
Madrona so it can be used for school commutes more. Kids need to be able to bike to school.
Don't let naysayers convince the town that we do not want the Vine Trail! 44 The Vine Trail offers a distinct life-style enhancement for the actual residents of Napa Valley 45 This town needs more hotels and fewer people saying NO to everything! 46 Primary concern is for the safety of the many bikers who are endangered on the Silverado trail.
The Vine Trail is beautiful and provides a safe place for locals and tourists to enjoy the Valley. 47 I think that the segment right within the city-- from the north at Adams to the south at Mitchell-- should be left open. Maybe after time and use, it will become more apparent what the best route would be through the city.
48 The Vine Trail has never gone through a small town residential areas and streets and this is not a good plan. I support the option to provide a break downtown and have the trail stop south of town and pick up again north of town. Cutting through our town is dangerous and too disruptive to our small community and removes even more precious parking spaces for our businesses and residents. I vote no.
49 The city streets aren't the vine trail problem. It's outside of the city where there needs to be a safe trail, that is separated from the highway
50 How about so Crane Ave via lewelling LN, Valley View street, Spring Street, Main Street!! 51 I hope it is done soon!
52 I am fully supportive of the vine trail. To be able to bicycle small commuter segments and /or the entire length of the valley safely will add greatly to the quality of life in the county. 53 Alterant B1 would be the best.
54 I hope it will be done
55 Love/ enjoy riding the vine trail, however due to all the wine tasting g rooms, feel it is safest for all to avoid hwy 29. Thank you!
56 The Mills Lane option looks to be the least intrusive, although I didn't see this route on the document from St Helena. Although I guess it will still affect residents on Starr Ave. 57 Chose Mills but church is a good backup plan
58 I did not see the Mills Lane option in the documentation, but if that were available I would prefer. 2nd is Church St.
59 I would like to see the Vine trail provide an alternate route up/down valley to avoid SilvTrail from Zinfandel Ln to Deer Park. As a car commuter and weekend cyclist, it is this area that is seems most hazardous.
60 It was hard to decide which route is best because no details were given for where the vine trail will exist as it enters St Helena. ie. which side of 29 it will be on. From what I researched, it looks like it will be on the west side of 29 as it enters the city. 61 It's time to get this done. It will be a huge benefit to the residents of St. Helena, and for tourists who want to experience the Napa Valley in a different way. It will also be safer than Silverado or the highway for cyclist.
62 As much as possible away from highway 29 traffic
63 The Vine Trail is awesome! Expanding beyond Yountville is a huge priority. Direct access to St Helena proper is not huge for me but using the trail as far north as possible is. I only occassional use the trail south of Trancas.
64 This is a wonderful addition but should be properly planned so that it doesn't create even more traffic hassle for the downtown corridor by placing bikes in competition with cars on Main Street which is already crowded and hard to navigate and it also should not run through otherwise untraveled neighborhoods.
65 We just need to find a way to make this happen
66 It’s a great project
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
5 / 14
67 A safe, fun outing with family and especially the grandchildren. 68 I don't live in SH so I am not familiar with street routes but I am looking forward to the extension of the Vine Trail. I use the Napa to Yountville Vine Trail almost daily. 69 Love what the vine trail is doing for our community! Promoting health, wellness and community by interconnecting us all through these safe bike routes. Santa Barbara has many through bike trails…since 1998!!! Why not Napa? Let’s get with the times! 70 I think it is critical for the Vine Trail to be completed and for it to be in St. Helena. 71 Bringing a rural bike trail thru a congested city is an accident in the making. 72 This is a safe way to establish more accessibility. A great way to increase the connectivity of both the physical city and the populace. The trail, no matter which direction is takes through town is a wonderful addition to the city and it will make Saint Helena even a more friendly place to live and visit.
73 What a fantastic project to bring another form of transportation and recreation to Napa Valley! I trust the city of St. Helena will strongly support the project through the city! 74 It’s been way to long . Hard to believe we so much push back from the community about a simple bike path which serve everyone. Once complete will really create a world class destination. Amazing that 3rd class destination have excellent bikes . We aren’t asking for whole lot . Thank you for your hard work .
75 Please do not let NYMBism direct the future of the trail. A few vocal ones can ruin the potential to help more people, specially students with commuting options 76 I bicycle to exercise. I feel that the bike trail has taken to long to be finish. 77 Scenic views would be appreciated
78 Down town St Helena was not built for a bike route or road closers for giant barrel Christmas trees
79 I love riding through St Helena, but I take it very seriously. They do not see you, and have probably had a couple glasses of wine...I am always ready to do any maneuver to save my life, especially turning off Main St.
80 The condition and narrow aspect of Oak Ave. is a game changer...it sux... 81 They can walk there bikes on the side walk and enjoy our town or ride on main st 82 Already supporting the trail with donations - best to connect through town in an organized way vs a free-for-all
83 THIS IS SO IMPORTANT NOT ONLY FOR CYCLISTS BUT WALKERS, JOGGERS, MOTHERS WITH STROLLERS, PEOPLE IN WHEELCHAIRS. IT'S IMPORTANT WE HAVE A USER-FRIENDLY TOWN THAT IS SAFE AND SECURE .
84 I love The Vine Trail! It is great for exercise (mental and physical) and running errands. If a business is close to where I can ride The Vine Trail I will go there more often and take my bike. Plus there is nothing like seeing happy kids with their huge smiles, decorated bikes, helmets customized with stickers, and even training wheels if needed, out for a ride with their families.
85 I don’t think the purpose of the vine trail is for children to get to school. 86 This would allow me to ride to work.
87 We are looking forward to using the vine trail
88 Is there anyway to look at the railroad route through St helena with fencing along the city limits? Also is Silverado trail an option? Or along creek bed? Assume not but had to ask as both are more obvious than disrupting in town-but the trail is impt!!! 89 .
90 The vine trail should parallel the train tracks through SH as it does on the rest of the route. 91 The need for foot/bike traffic could not be more critical for the economic vitality of our town.
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
6 / 14
We see several empty storefronts, talk about lack of parking, and the need to make SH more family friendly. The external perception of SH being isolationist in the valley would only be reinforced were we the only municipality to not make this work. While I live in Deer Park, I work in the schools and am saddened by our inability to grow the economic and social vitality of our community.
92 being able to ride from Calistoga to American Canyon and Vallejo (for the ferry) is very important. We need a safe trail through St. Helena.
93 Love the vine trail for bike riding
94 I'd like to see the Vine Trail come into town from the North along the RR right-of-way to Hunt.
Have a kiosk there to let riders know where to pick it up going South. Parking could be on Library Lane and Adams Street (east side) for those wanting to drive into town with bikes.
Directional signage needed.
95 .
96 All of the routes sound fab as long as (for safety) they have an actual bordered or separated path - in other words - more than a painted line between riders and cars. The Mills lane path seems quite circuitous, but I guess that's ok. The other paths go on very busy roads, thus the feedback about a safe, bordered path. My house burned in the Glass fire, so I'm currently in a rental in Rutherford. Would love to ride without having to be along busy 29 with tourists weaving while looking at vineyards and nothing but a painted line as a border. Good luck! 97 I used to live in St Helena, and I now live in Calistoga, but have been here in the valley for most of my life - and the number of tourists here now make it more and more a priority to have safe bike paths to once again feel safe and comfortable riding up and down the valley. 98 Fabulous opportunity for all
99 I have previously lived in a bicycle friendly city and the education necessary to shift to a cycling culture is important. Many people don't follow cycling laws/rules of the road (helmets, signaling, etc.) and high speed cyclists can have issues sharing the road safely with others.
These issues are of unique concern in our area that is not currently cycling friendly and because we draw tourists who may choose to cycle but not be prepared to do so safely. What will be done to educate the public? How will the trail be monitored for safety? 100 As a Napa County resident, I am super excited for the Vine Trail to connect so many great places- to bike, walk or run! It would be sad if the trail skirted the town of St Helena, or had very few access points into town. I can easily see using the trail to bike or run with friends to shop, eat or wine taste, and the more accessable businesses, the better! Thank you for helping make this an amazing way to travel the Valley for locals and tourists, alike. 101 I love the Vine Trail. It is wonderful that it is safe for all levels of bike riders. 102 I want ample parking for my car, as I will travel via car to access the trail. 103 My business is within city limits so this is why i am responding to this. 104 The Vine Trail is not coming through St. Helena for the benefit of the locals. We already walk and ride on any and all public roads. So lets find the least offensive and disruptive route to get all those tourists through town without taking out local parking places and making locals stop unnecessarily because of tourists on bicycles!
105 It has been a disappointing process over the past 10 years. Can't anyone make a decision? 106 As a senior hoping to extend my biking life, having access in town near where I live is important.
107 I think the Vine Trail is an amazing initiative that could really help to offer people an alternative to driving to see our beautiful valley
108 Star to Adams bypasses the main city traffic
109 I love to bike in Napa Valley but the roads have become too dangerous with drunks and inattentive drivers.
110 I have been an avid cyclist in the Napa valley for over 20 years. I have a 2nd home in Yountville and regularly ride to St Helena. Having a safe bike trail would be a great benefit to all Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
7 / 14
residents and visitors and a wonderful benefit to the City and its local businesses. 111 I believe the vine trail through SH is absolutely critical if we want a vibrant and energetic downtown. I believe it will benefit not only residents, but also the various businesses in the city center.
112 Please, take the important step forward by supporting the Church St or the Oak Ave alignments of the Vine Trail. Change is hard, uncomfortable, and scary. But change is also an indisputable part of life. This is a generational opportunity to embrace a small change that will have lasting impact on my children and their children, and the countless thousands of others who will use the Vine Trail in St. Helena over the coming years. 113 Try to keep the Vine Trail off major thoroughfares due to safety concerns. 114 Please keep the vine trail away from streets and traffic - too many people walk children and pets on the trail along with cyclists
115 The beauty of the vine trail is not in the individual segments but rather that as a whole it creates a connection from Vallejo to Calistoga, how cool is that! 116 I would like the least street crossovers and direct route 117 Why isn't a route on the west side of town being considered, i.e. Sulpher Springs to Crane to Spring? Would be more friendly to students commuting across town and would allow for a true Class I route.
118 Move quickly, please
119 I need to see a map to see where these routes are- I can not envision them without a town map. Can you provide a map showing the options? [email protected] 415-716-3812 120 A non continuous option is preferable. Bike rest stop areas could be on either end of town.
Cyclists don’t need a dedicated path through town. As a seasoned cyclist, I would much prefer to choose my own path the few blocks of downtown rather than disrupt either the east or west side.
121 creating safe biking trails is important; however, none of these seem like great options given the existing congestion on these specific streets, already limited parking, and these are all residential areas.
122 I'm a strong advocate of this project. It's personal to me as an avid cyclist, but in addition I strongly believe that it will increase tourism and most importantly, save lives. Having cyclists and wine tasters both sharing Silverado Trail is a disaster. My strongest preference with respect to any decision making is whatever makes it happen most quickly. Thanks to all that are working to make this a reality.
123 This is a great community asset.
124 Can't wait till all of the trail is completed!! Would also like to have the trail when along the highway swept on a schedule.
125 Please consider mostly the local resident homeowners and their needs on their streets to be able to safely access their homes and driveways and enough room/space on their street for themselves and the current and future needs of local traffic and deliveries. 126 As someone who has worked in St. Helena for almost a decade, please don't let a vocal minority of our community reject this critical opportunity for safe, accessible walking and biking through town. The alignment proposed by the Mayor and Councilmember Hall is almost as bad as no Vine Trail - it would force those who want (and need) a safe place to walk and bike to stay out of downtown, and be relegated to the fringes of our community. Shame!! 127 This is a highly desirable route for locals and tourists especially with the boom of cycling since the COVID pandemic.
128 Parking and traffic around Main Street is already difficult enough. Although access to the Vine Trail in St. Helena is very important to me, please don't bring the trail through already congested areas. Thank you!
129 It’s time to get people out of their cars and onto other forms of transportation and this is an important link.
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
8 / 14
130 what is the parking spot replacement plan for stealing parking from the already congested and limited parking down town or in the impacted residential streets? 131 If Pratt Ave is going to be used it must be repaved. It is unsafe. 132 It should not run through our already crowded neighborhoods. Maybe Run it along the railroad tracks path.
133 The mills route is too far away to encourage residents to use sustainable transportation around town. There is no benefit from this route!
134 I think that no matter what any survey says nor what any resident of St Helena says, the town council will do whatever they want to or whatever is most convenient for them, since none of the routes are nearby where any of them live. They simply don't care! 135 I feel the city of St. Helena should figure out how we can accommodate the vine trail. I don’t think vine trail users will park or dismount/ walk their bikes through Main Street in its current form. A long time resident told me when I first moved here in 2014 that I need not worry about future projects….nothing gets decided in St. Helena. I was in Holland last Oct. & the sheer number of bike riders commuting to work is impressive. For folks complaining about traffic the vine trail could be an answer. I won’t ride my bike in town or on the Silverado Trail because I don’t feel safe but would use a dedicated space. I heard a comment at the community forum last week about all the many issues the city needs to fix but let’s remember that almost all the money comes from the vine trail organization.
136 The Vine Trail will be an asset to St. Helena as it connects our town to down valley in a safe and community enhancing way. Allows more people to visit our town, support local retailers and restaurants without creating more vehicle traffic on our roads, particularly Hwy 29/Main St.
We must have the Vine Trail in St. Helena.
137 Please make it happen ASAP
138 It is critical to have public space for use for walking, biking, and particularly for children to have access to a path where there is not a threat of cars. Fully in support of the Vine Trail 139 St Helena is easily bikeable as-is, so let’s keep the vine trail traffic away from congested areas as much as possible and then riders that want to visit downtown can easily do so 140 From my desk on the 3rd floor, I have a birds-eye view of the challenging traffic patterns across Pope x Church x Main x railroad tracks. Equally challenging is the other end of Church x Hunt/ Railroad, where traffic converges from 6 different directions, including the big-rig trucks from Safeway and the Wine Train. The idea of overlaying the Vine Trail atop this dangerous mess is ill-conceived. As a resident at Mitchell x Voorhees, it is equally irresponsible to consider using Oak for the Vine Trail. The fact that the elem school is located at Oak x Adams - with all the parent traffic, child pedestrians and school buses already clogging up that area - would seem to add more danger and is ill-advised. To me, routing the Vine Trail around the edge of the busy downtown corridor makes the most sense. Don't get me started on the people who park trucks and oversized vehicles all along Hunt, Church and Pope, encroaching on driveways and busy street corners, and blocking the view to make a safe entry into traffic. Please accept my sincere gratitude for considering my feedback and opinion! 141 Help develop the Vine Trail to have singles and families enjoy outdoors and exercise together 142 The connectivity would enhancing going throughout the valley. 143 I highly oppose the Vine Trail on Church Street! As it is there the road is narrow with street parking and traffic flowing both ways. Large trucks also use Church Street for Safeway, beverage deliveries to business on Church St, and other vendors. 144 We need fewer cars in St. Helena! People who are complaining about parking need to walk and ride more! Bikes are not what is causing traffic. Cars are! Do not let the loud few push the Vine Trail out of St. Helena!
145 It is unfortunate that any potential Vine Trail through the city of St. Helena puts extreme pressure on already challenging intersections and throughways for the locals to get to and from schools, stores and medical offices. In a perfect world, Church street would be a one-way going north, Oak Avenue one-way southbound, and St. Helena Main Street would be for foot and bicycle traffic only, as well as outdoor dining from Mitchell to Adams St., or even Pine Street on the north end of town.
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
9 / 14
146 Please put the money into improving overall road conditions. Well maintained roads can serve both cars and bikers alike.
147 It would be nice to include safe routes to each school in town via the trail. 148 Please, please, please make this happen.
149 Back roads are far better that Main St./Route 29.
150 Anything that can be done to link Calistoga and St Helena would be appreciated For those of us not living in SH a map of the proposed routes would be more helpful in making a decision for preferred routes
151 I live just south of town, off of West Zinfandel Lane. I am really looking forward to being able to get to St. Helena and get around the town without having to drive on Hwy, 29. And I look forward to a safe way for the children of St. Helena to get around town, to travel to and from schools and activities, on a safe biking & walking route. 152 Please proceed to implement this project. As a retired road Maintenance Supervisor from Solano County for 34 years and an avid cyclist both my wife and I from Napa, and a lot of friends that travel to the Napa Valley from the Sacramento/Folsom Area to cycle and frequent the wineries, and restaurants. This would enhance the safety of the community and improve the overall traffic follow through the downtown.
153 Caltrans/Wine train took a swath of land from our vineyard over 20 years ago. They completed the road improvements without touching that land. It could be a great part of the bike trail walking path at hwy 29 and Zinfandel on the east side of 29. 154 no thought
155 I do not live in the area
156 Connecting the Vine Trail is long overdue. The community benefits far outweigh effects from changes that need to be made in the city plan to accommodate this project. 157 Would prefer keeping path on East side of 29 and extending the Class 1 section along the railroad tracks.
158 Very excited this is being worked on to connect the valley. Can't wait to run on it. 159 Oak and Adams on the west side of Main are very congested w schools and new businesses.
The eastbound Adams x Main intersection and stop light are maxed out. Adams is a narrow road. It would be dangerous and unnecessary to add further complexity to an already stressed street. The various options on the east side of 29 through town are preferred. I believe that we should plan this path with the highest volume use in mind. I believe that the bulk of the use will be from people going through town as bike commuters and cyclists, not necessarily those who live in town who might use it for errands.
160 we bike the vine trail now and we LOVE it, it would be great to have more, thank you 161 wish we could work something out with the train. I see a lot of dangerous situations going thru town. If we could stop the train south of town, let them have a great destination there we could use the track ROW
162 The cine trail will Create opportunities for a Safe way to ride bikes through the Napa Valley 163 Not everyone is going to be happy with the decision. This is true of everything we do. People do not like change. This being said, it is important to hear feedback. This decision has not been "presented lightly", yet community members are acting as though they have not been "asked for input". There are, I am confident, other factors involved. I am grateful for Chuck and team - and Blue Zones pushing this initiative forward... thank you all. 164 wide lanes for all users: bikes, ped, etc. water fountains doggy bags benches 165 The Vine Trail is crucial to the safety of everyone. Accidents and deaths with cars and bikes could be avoided. Getting bikers off the 29 and the Silverado Trail will save lives and getting the Vine Trail open is the responsible thing to do for everyone's benefit. 166 We can't wait to be able to access the Vine Trail from St. Helena - it is a great family experience, and we will do so more if we do not have to load bikes up in our car to access it Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
10 / 14
167 The Vine Trail is important to me as I continue to teach my child health habits. We are currently able to ride from Napa half way to yountville, once we reach that goal, it would be fabulous to have a safe route up to St. Helena.
168 The Vine Trail is a vital resource that connects communities together through a shared appreciate for exercise, engagement and appreciation for where we live. We are lucky to have the current stretches in use and I look forward to the additional connection from Calistoga to Yountville as I live and work in St. Helena. I appreciate all you do. 169 Why do not any of these exit St. Helena to the north via Fulton? Also, is there no way to build a path along the railroad right of way? We cannot remove street parking or deleteriously impact neighborhoods. We need to be careful of this. We also need to keep bikers safe. Thank you! 170 As a citizen of Calistoga who enjoys visiting St. Helena, I feel as though I would visit more often if there were a safe connector of the two towns where I could avoid driving my car. 171 The most important thing is to bring the access and route to the VT up valley. I don't think having it run directly through town is important as long as there are ways to access it like Pope or Adams. It is difficult to imagine how it could come directly into town without negatively impact the residents who live there. Having the route run along the river makes the most sense and seems like it would be beautiful. If there was an option to ease it in through town, like they did in Yountville, that would be beneficial.
172 Important for the whole valley to have the wine trail, locals and guests alternate transportation 173 Our town needs it
174 I live on Church Street and I am especially concerned about this option. It's a busy street, with kids & pets. Extra people would make it dangerous. The traffic at the intersection of Pope & Main would be even worse than it is now. Simply a bad idea. 175 N/a
176 Keep up the good work
177 Great alternative for walking and biking from town to town then driving, causing air pollution. 178 This needs to be a top priority. The worldwide acclaim will only grow if we can accomplish this, to the ultimate benefit of all of our local businesses. 179 The Vine Trail is very important for the future of St Helena. 180 What a negative that St. Helena city would consider being the broken link for the vine trail.
Don’t bring more negative energy to a downtown that isn’t thriving because of lack of planning to handle traffic and parking.
181 I think it is a very important feature for the young. I am elderly and would use it for walking occasionally, but I think it is valuable for our citizens. 182 Go, Vine Trail!
183 We need better ways for residents to get around town and avoid the mess on highway 29/main street.
184 No Vine Trail through St Helena. Spend the money that would have gone to maintaining the trail on mini parks at each end of town where riders can park their bikes and walk around our town, support the local businesses.
185 Citizens didnt ask for this trail. Who will be paying to maintain this trail? Hopefully not St.
Helena given all of our financial struggles. The advocates for this trail will not be effected at all, while home and business owners will. We don’t need a trail running through town. We cannot handle it. I think the trail is great for stretches between towns, but we don’t need to hurt locals 186 Unless the wine train is utilized as a commuter train the tracks would better be served as the vine trail path. Alternatively, shutting down Main Street to allow cycling/walking paths and outdoor restaurant, community gathering spaces would be the ideal option 187 Would love this. Opportunity to get out there and walk 188 I love the idea of the vine trail, though no where else along it's path did it have to go right through a town. This town originally was not built for the infrastructure to house a bike route.
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
11 / 14
Getting through town already is often hectic and adding these bike routes through town would cause further distress for locals and tourists alike whom are more inclined, unfortunately, to drive than to bike or recreate.
189 This would adversely affect neighborhoods and take away what is already limited parking. 190 the Oak Ave or the Church/Railroad routes are both good. The loss of parking spaces is overblown/can be mitigated. Move the bus drop off. Ask the SHUSD to solve this problem, they’ve managed throughout covid with lots of changes, they can solve this problem too! select an option locals will use…thank you!
191 I'd like to see the vine trail end on the south end of town at Grayson Ave. and start again at the north end at Pratt Ave.
192 Vine Trail should not go through City limits. Stop it before south of town and pick up north of town.
193 Please revisit the “gap” option - our town is too small and already congested to have the Vine Trail run through.
194 Route variation suggestion: On the route that goes to Spring Street, I suggest installing a lighted crosswalk to turn east (towards the bike shop) and then using the 3 parking spaces in front of 1200 Main Street to connect with the alley way between 1200 and 1210 Main Street.
This would then connect with the railroad behind the Main Street buildings where the back street is wider. The bike route could then continue north of Hunt Avenue as proposed in the Church Street route. Back up plan suggestion: If it would come down to having a gap in the Vine Trail within St. Helena, I would then recommend the Vine Trail consider relaxing the Class I (or IV alternative) requirement. Instead, Class III bike routes shared with car traffic could be installed along both the Adams Street and Church Street routes. This would alleviate parking loss concerns, but could still have improved crossings, street quality, and striping/signage for cyclist safety and easy navigation.
195 I would vote for an option that would by pass the city and the residential homes. It would be great if there was a place where visitors could park their bike at the south and no the ends of town and walk through the city. This would not create any issue for the neighborhoods and business and bring more tourists to the city. Similar to the break in Napa at Oxbow. As residents of St Helena we are very opposed to having the trail run through the city. 196 None of these options seem right for the community and for traffic. 197 St Helena street are already very impacted by traffic. Adding the Vine Trail on any of these streets would be very dangerous. Drive along Oak Avenue on any given day and its very obvious that we don't need to add a vine trail.
198 Away from the neighbors and small streets on the west side of highway 29 that are already congested would be ideal. Thank you.
199 Taking Charter Oak Ave (instead of Mills as it exists now) to Pope is already the half-mile detour that I have to take when I bike to downtown. The Vine Trail should make it easier for people to walk and bike downtown, so making it a super long detour to Pope and Starr would really not be making an improvement to the existing bike route. It will also be far more expensive to build.
200 -Maps of the options on the survey -impacts of each of the options- loss of parking spaces, financial impacts, There is not enough information to have any kind of educated opinion about the options.
201 The thought of losing parking on Oak & Adams as well as losing part of our field for staff parking is not acceptable. Please do not allow this to happen. 202 Knowing how people drive in St. Helena, this is not a good idea at all. There should be no parking spots given up for the Vine Trail, parking is already difficult if not impossible. The trail can pick up again just North of town.
203 As a frequent visitor to Napa Valley to ride and dine easy access near restaurants but not in traffic is the top priority.
204 I strongly disagree with the proposed Mills lane option. This could put people at risk as they would be traveling through activity farmed vineyards. All parcels on Mills lane are zoned as Ag Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
12 / 14
20 and have the right to continue farming as they see fit under the right to farm act in Nap County. Thank you
205 Mills lane would cause way too much of a detour, bikers will see main street ahead and carry on towards town regardless of signs. No need to cause such a detour, keep the path as close to town and get people into town to shop and explore.
206 The Vine Trail is an opportunity to dramatically enhance and encourage recreational activities and exercise, reduce environmental impact, and encourage tourists to visit St Helena while also reducing drink driving. I cannot think of a more positive impact for the community. I would use it often and encourage others to do the same.
207 there must be better solutions - these seem so trafficky and unsafe for riders and drivers. would be great to not have it cross hwy 29
208 It would be great if you could take over the wine train and use their land 209 You need to provide a map outlining a road with a survey. You need to talk about traffic for residents living in VERY close proximity to these proposed options and you need to be very honest about the reality of increased participation on daily ridership on the VT not just weekend warriors. Most families still rely heavily on transporting their students via car. 210 The loss of much needed parking is a great concern. The mitigation options offered are inadequate and in no way actually mitigate the lost parking. 211 Thank you for asking
212 Mills lane is not a good option especially considering there is not currently enough room on the road for two cars to comfortably drive past each other. There is also a huge liability for the growers with bikers going through the vineyards. Additionally, it’s my belief that most tourists and users of the Vine Trail in Saint Helena will not actually want to do that big of a detour around town and will end up going through town instead of using the trail if it’s on Mills route. 213 For locals, the route should be shorter than regular streets. For tourists, sending them through back streets won't work
214 I think there should be a gap in the trail. Stop it at Pope/Mitchell with picnic tables, bike racks, kiosk with directions and shopping suggestions- a mini welcome center. Let them walk/ride their bikes through town and pick up the vine trail on Railroad/Adams. This way they actually stop and visit our town hopefully shop and spend money. 215 No path in town
216 No path in town
217 I like the idea of the vine trail, but don't like the options presented. I like the idea of the GAP version, leaving in town St. Helena out, with options to pick up the trail north and south of town with no connectivity in town. Thank you.
218 There should be a gap in St. Helena.
219 I don’t like the plans to change the front of the Elementary School and Carpy Field at all. Oak Street is already very busy during school hours and this would add to the congestion. I prefer the other two routes.
220 Regardless of the chosen route, I think it is important that St. Helena pick a designated route. I worry that otherwise cyclists trying to go between cities will end up on Main Street through downtown, causing traffic congestion or getting injured. The General Plan proposes bike lanes and dedicated bike paths throughout St. Helena to make getting around using alternative transportation more accessible. It is important to note that the Vine Trail should eventually just be one of many safe options for biking in St. Helena.
221 Note that there are two proposed connector routes in the general plan maps for future road ways. 1. Extension of oak from Mitchell south to Grayson. 2. Extension of Allison south from charter oak to mills lane. These should be considered in any alignment 222 I think St. Helena should be a gap in the VT
223 I would prefer a gap in SH. Town is too congested!! 224 I would prefer a St. Helena GAP. Thank you.
Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
13 / 14
225 No one wants to give up land worth $xxx but how much did they pay for the land? 226 Please don’t take the parking away from Oak st. And consider banning electric bikes on the vine trail. Also I think the vine trail is very dangerous you have bikes and pedestrians. This is so unsafe . It’s just a matter of time for a biker to hit a pedestrian and kill them. 227 I may be supportive if the trail was on the outskirts of town only not thru the center of town 228 City council needs to make progress and not be scared of short term pain for something that will provide long term safety, access, connectivity and value to st Helena 229 Subjecting local citizens to the Vine Trail encroachment through business districts is unacceptable. Please find an alternate route with less daily impact. Citizens first! 230 Traffic is already bad in town. I worry that bikes will increase accidents or increase traffic because of signals for the bikes along town routes. I don’t want the trail by the schools. I don’t want it along the main route to Safeway. I don’t want it to clog up the pipe street bridge by college with a signal for every bike. Underpass???? Along the river by pope? Traffic because of increased bike traffic is my main concern.
231 Please not on Oak Avenue. Residential, schools, church and business affected. 232 Taking away 50 parking spots from locals is insane. We need the parking. Imagine what would happen to the Oak avenue and Adams businesses. These options are incredibly i thoughtful to our business owners and locals.
233 It is the right thing to do
234 What is the cost the city will be responsible for related to the Vine Trail? The city has far more important infrastructure issues (and expenses) to focus on before the Vine Trail project. No dedicated Vine Trail through St Helena.
235 St. Helena should spend the money on fixing roads that are severely damaged with potholes before spending money on this. Streets like Grayson, Birch and Mitchell are embarrassing. I understand these might not be roads that tourists travel on, but residents do and they need to be fixed.
236 Once you get on actual roads riding becomes not enjoyable speeding cars especially Pope and Mitchell and the roads are terrible namely Edwards, part Of Spring. 237 I am disabled. I need to be able to park in town to go to local stores. 238 Please do not add additional pressure on our current road/city roads. Traffic and parking are already a major issue.
239 Don't allow a bike trail to destroy our community for a few bike riders. I value the activity, but it doesn't add any value to our community when you're taking away parking and restricting our town roads. There's already enough traffic as it is.
240 Too much school activity on oak street.
241 I will be completely upset if you take my parking away, and make my street a one way. This is really ridiculous!! First Piscasso’s and now this!!!??? Stop Messing with our town because of someone’s ego!
242 I am NOT IN THE LEAST INTERESTED in any route that removes even ONE downtown parking space. It is too difficult to park downtown already - and, biking IS NOT always the best mode of transportation even for those of us in town.
243 It would be easier to envision the routes if you provided maps on the survey. Also where would the parking be for vine trail access?
244 Why not walk thru St Helena. Get off bikes and see the town. Preferred route down Railroad to Fulton then walk bike to tree tunnel.
245 As an employee of SHES, I do not like any changes that would directly affect the school property, thus limiting parking even further and congesting the traffic even more so than now.
No thank you.
246 the vine trail does NOT need to go through town, keep it on the back side or people can get Agenda Item #12.1.
City of St. Helena Vine Trail Alignment Survey
14 / 14
through town without the trail and just resume the trail outside of town, this whole trail is a hindrance.
247 The cost to the city needs to be transparent and the idea of a Kiosk/locked bike rack at the edge of Main St is great. Get off the bike and take time in our city. If you want to bypass us it shouldn’t be through the city.
248 I think the Tony option needs to be put in. Thank you. 249 Church street is totally inappropriate for the vine trail 250 Some residents whose streets will be directly affected by the loss of parking due to the bike trail have expressed previous concern to the council that because of this, they feel the “Church Street” route is the best route. What they fail to consider is that Church Street already has limited parking. There is currently parking on one side of the street only. Additionally, should the Church Street route be selected, local residents, students, workers and tourists will be traveling by (and using) the rest area/public bathrooms at the corner of Church Street across from Safeway much more frequently, and at a higher volume. This city-serviced rest stop is in need of a serious update with regular city maintenance. It’s quite the eyesore. It’s something to consider.
251 Additional illuminated crosssalk options
252 We are donors and it would allow us to have our kids on bikes near our home (we would join the trail at Lodi). Currently we have no way to get to downtown, Brasswood (easily) or to Crain park without a car. Currently we take walks down Lodi and walk through some vineyards to get to Brasswood.
253 Church street would be dangerous. There are too many speeding drinks. The street is too busy with Safeway trucks and is too narrow to be safe. What would the neighbors do on trash day? Have you thought about putting the trail behind Church street in the alleyway behind the businesses in Main Street? It’s very quiet and no risk for the people on bikes and no impact to residential parking. My email is Jhilger1 @ me.com if you want more information 254 Need to evaluate Sulphur Springs to Crane to Spring to Hudson to Madrone-cross 29 then Park to Pratt.
255 Thank you for your help with this. We continue to hear that Vine Trail has researched many routes, but when questioned about it, Chuck and Vine Trail team say they basically "thought" about it and then immediately ruled out other routes because it didn't fit their view of the Trail.
That's hogwash and a waste of everyone's time.
256 The Vine Trail is a huge opportunity to increase active transportation opportunities and decrease traffic congestion in St. Helena.
257 I am looking forward to the connection to Yountville Agenda Item #12.1.
Motion:
A motion was made by Parks and Recreation Commission Member Christopher Warner, to move that the results of the rank order survey be provided as information to the City Council for consideration in connection with the alignment option for the Vine Trail. The motion was seconded by Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee member John Zimmerman.
Roll call vote:
ATSC Chair Leslie Stanton: Yes
ATSC Vice Chair Jeff Farmer: Yes
ATSC Regular Member John Zimmerman: Yes
ATSC Voting alternate Terra Sampson: Yes
ATSC Voting alternate Katie MacDonnell: Yes
PRC Chair Matthew Demchuk: Yes
PRC Vice Chair Tye Taylor: Yes
PRC Member: Michelle Deasy: Yes
PRC Member Rebekah Weeman: Yes
PRC Member Christopher Warner: Yes
Agenda Item #12.1.
The following feedback was given at the in person and virtual meetings as part of the outreach for the Vine Trail Alignment – February 2022:
• Oak/Adams concern is school and conflict with busses, but okay on weekends.
Concern is safety and child being hit. Was Sulphur Springs to Valley View Considered?
• Opposed to Oak/Adams. Concerned about drinking and conflicts with cars. Park maintenance is already deferred. How will we maintain our vine trail? • Concern about cost. Prefers a non option alternatives (stops in south side and starts on north end of City).
• There are no solutions on Oak parking.
• Church Street is too narrow, but better than Oak/Adams. • Concerned about getting from Hunt to Fulton. Have a navigation problem with train. Drive the route at 4:00pm at times of Safeway shopping and office building employee coming/going.
• Why can’t cyclists not walk bicycles through town?
• There is a route I’ve done - suphur springs to Crane/valley view to spring to madrona and then going past 7th Day Adventist church. This is already a bike trail on a large chunk of it.
• Concerned about safety. Worried about drunk drivers and one-way street potential for head-on collision. How would we put out our garbage cans on garbage day? Sidewalks are rocky.
• Does not like any Adams Street option. School is a Historical landmark.
Concerned with speed bumps from a public safety perspective. Concerned about maintenance of Vine trail, even if Vine Trail is paying 50% of the cost. Parking impacts on businesses. Crossing a highway is not safe; as a firefighter saw two fatalities crossing highway. We should add a 5th option and have an informational kiosk on south/north end of town with benches and bike locks. Let people decided what to do. Saves money and hassle. Going to cause traffic, harm, safety issues in town.
• Totally opposed to Oak/Adams. I am a landlord and my tenants are concerned this alignment will destroy their business. Parking mitigation is too far away. • We use all of Carpy Field and I can’t imagine using a portion of the field for parking.
• I cycle all over. It would be convenient for me. The route that includes connecting to schools would be reall, really good. Oak is in deplorable condition. • Lots of children live at end of Hunt and Pope and could pick up Vine Trail on Pope. RLS kids could use the improved intersection at Pope and Main to cross safely at the signal.
Agenda Item #12.1.
From: Preya Nixon
To: Kamille Garcia; Kamille Garcia
Subject: FW: [External] Bike trail
Date: Thursday, February 3, 2022 8:57:51 AM
----
Preya B. Nixon
Assistant to the City Manager
City of St. Helena | City Manager’s Office
1572 Railroad Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574 àNew address Direct: (707) 968-2635 | Mobile/Text (707) 320-7904
[email protected]
Wash your Hands | Wear a Mask | Watch your Distance
Lávese sus manos | Use mascarilla | Mantenga su distancia From: Anthony Micheli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:06 AM
To: Preya Nixon <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: [External] Bike trail
Prey
Thank you for your schedule of meetings on the Vine Trail. I may not be able to make them. I hope you will consider this proposal I sent to the city as a potential route. Thanks Anthony Micheli Begin forwarded message:
From: Anthony Micheli <[email protected]>
Subject: Bike trail
Date: January 24, 2022 at 9:32:54 AM PST
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Cindy
Agenda Item #12.1.
Please forward this email to the city manager, public works director, members of the city council and mayor. Thank you
Jeff Finney (local commercial relator) and myself would like to propose a possible route for the vine trail thru St. Helena.
If the Vine Trail follows the railroad tracks to Pope St. Riders can enter Main St on their own using the stop lite at Pope and Main. Otherwise the Vine Trail would proceed east on Pope and hook up with the City bike Trail in front of Silverado Orchards. Then turn north on Starr Avenue across the Hunter Project. Then turn West on Adams to the intersection of the Wine Train tracks. At this point riders can enter Main St. by way of the stop lite on Adams and Main. At the Wine Train tracks the Vine Trail would continue north to Pratt Ave. Turn west on Pratt and then north thru the Elm Tunnel to Calistoga.
WE feel this route preserves the business downtown parking and the Vine Trail does not go back and forth across Main Street and riders have two access points to downtown. Thank you for this consideration. Jeff Finney and Anthony Micheli Agenda Item #12.1.