4. That the City of St. Helena will prioritize actions identified in the City’s General Plan, and look to it for guidance on climate goals and practices that support the provisions herein.
Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on April 12, 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 #8.6.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Bobbi Monnette <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 8:55 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: [External] letter to the City Council addressing consent item 8.6 Cindy,
I am unable to attend the April 12, 2022 City Council Meeting.
I am therefore, writing to the City Council regarding Consent Item scheduled for that meeting.
I would like to have that item pulled, in order to discuss the addition of the following.
In keeping with our efforts to comply with the demands of climate change, and the effects it has on our environment, I would like to ask the Council to add the following concern to the list on this Item:
It appears that one of the consequences of climate change is an extension of the Northern California wildfire season, and the drought of the past two plus years. This has, in turn, resulted in a local threat to healthy air quality, as is described by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) reports, and experienced through direct, personal observation. I therefore, respectfully ask the Council to add the danger of solid particulate burning from fireplaces
and wood burning stoves, during and after the wildfire season, to the list of concerns covered in the staff report for Consent
Item 8.6.
The next steps might include:
"The City will explore changing our fireplace, wood burning stove ordinance to protect residents from the increase in unhealthy
levels of solid particulates in the air we breath during and after the dangerously extended wild fire season, a phenomenon that
is apparently the result of climate change.
The ever fewer months without wildfires do not spare us from solid particulate smoke in our lungs from fireplace and wood stove burning during those "otherwise, potentially clean air" times.
Would the Council consider modifying our current fireplace/wood burning stove ordinance to ban fireplace and wood burning stove
burning of solid particulates at any time, unless they provide the only source of heat for a dwelling. I think that the public health threat
resulting from the current practice, has become acute enough to justify an end to this type of pollution if it is solely for the pleasure of
a tradition that is no longer necessary for keeping a home comfortable and safe, and is at the expense of the health and safety of our
community.
For those dwellings that depend on fireplace and/or wood stove burning for their main source of heat, I would like the Council
to consider adopting an addendum to our current ordinance that requires upgrading substandard solid particulate burning devices.
If it is not a hardship for the owner of such a dwelling to upgrade a substandard fireplace or wood stove if that is the sole source of heat
for the dwelling, a required update would seem appropriate from a public health perspective. Perhaps the City could apply for a grant that
would subsidize the expense of those upgrades.
Agenda Item #8.6.
2 In addition, the following language might be added to our current ordinance to allow attrition to eliminate all fireplaces and wood
stoves that don't meet the minimum standards as enacted by the State of California. "Upon transfer of deed, fireplaces and/or wood stoves that are the sole source of heat for a dwelling, are required to be upgraded
if they do not meet the State of California minimum standards for these devices at the time of sale." Thank you for your consideration.
Barbara Monnette
644 McCorkle Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
(707) 963-2840 (business land line)
(510) 220-6587 (cell)
Agenda Item #8.6.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Susan Crosby <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2022 10:52 AM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: [External] Climate Emergency Resolution
Dear Cindy,
Please enter a note of my heartfelt support in favor of the Climate Emergency Resolution. It’s more than timely — and whatever is more than urgent, it’s that, too. With the talent and resources in the Napa Valley we can be models for change. Without change, the game’s up.
Thank you,
Susan Crosby
Agenda Item #8.6.
Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 12 Apr 2022
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Subject: 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: James C. McCann, Interim City Manager
Reviewed By: April Mitts, Administrative Services Director Approved By: James C. McCann, Interim City Manager
BACKGROUND
Discussion regarding the development of the Napa Valley Vine Trail (Vine Trail) as a continuous pedestrian and bicycle facility throughout Napa County has been active for several years. The interest in and support for the potential pedestrian and bicycle facility is reflected in City Council guiding policies:
City Council Workplan 1C. Complete analysis of St. Helena Vine Trail route options and facilitate Council decision making on a preferred route.
City Council Goal 1. Improve and maintain safe and reliable City infrastructure with a commitment to environmental stewardship, public health and public safety.
Recently, the potential for alignments to accommodate a segment of the Vine Trail through St. Helena has received considerable public input and broad based support.
Strong objection to including Church Street without substantial mitigation or portions of Safeway’s private property were expressed by property owners and residents during public meetings.
The City Council received an update on planning efforts and community feedback on alignment options at its March 22, 2022 regular meeting. Following public comment and Agenda Item #10.1.
Council deliberations, the Council directed staff to bring forward a recommended alignment for the St. Helena segment of the Vine Trail for consideration.
DISCUSSION
Staff has considered the following in addressing the Council’s direction:
• Respect the input residents and business owners in selecting an alignment; • Identify an alignment, which is realistic and practical given the “built” nature of our community and the numerous constraints and sensitivities, which exist; • Avoid removal of parking or changes to or significant interference with circulation patterns in neighborhoods;
• Consider costs of construction and long-term maintenance in the selection of a recommended alignment;
• Ensure that a continuous alignment is identified through the community to enhance the competitiveness of grant funding requests; and • Recognize that the Vine Trail will evolve over time and alternate alignments and further improvements can be considered, as desired, in the future.
Staff has, together with Vine Trail leaders and Napa County senior engineering staff, identified an alignment, which was informed by the above factors, flows from our adopted General Plan Bike Plan, and is consistent with the recommendations the City has received from our advisory committees (the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee).
Recommended Alignment (Attachment 1).
Segment I: From southern City limits on Highway 29/Main Street to Mitchell Drive.
Segment II: Mitchell Drive to Oak Avenue to Adams Street to Railroad Avenue.
Segment III: Railroad Avenue to Fulton Lane or Napa Valley Wine Train (NVWT) right-ofway to Fulton Lane. NVWT right-of-way from Fulton Lane to Pratt Avenue to Highway 29/Main Street.
The facility types will vary in these different segments as reflected in the Bike Plan, unless formally amended through subsequent public hearings.
Facility Type.
Segment I: Class I, II, or III.
Segment II: Class III with Bicycle Boulevard elements.
Segment III: Class III on Railroad Avenue. Class I on NVWT right-of-way (Bike Plan amendment would be necessary to establish Class I on NVWT right-of-way from Adams Street to Fulton Lane). Class I, II or III on Pratt Avenue to Highway 29/Main Street.
It should be noted that acquisition of right-of-way or easements over lands in Segment I and III areas will be necessary to accommodate Class I paths.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Much design work will occur in the future, once design and construction funding is secured by the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition (NVVTC). That design phase will explore any desired change from facility types anticipated in the Bike Plan, (for example: a Class I on the NVWT right-of-way in-lieu of the Class III facility in Railroad Avenue in Segment III), signage and pavement markings, and options/features to enhance user safety and insure effective vehicular circulation. The Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee (ATSC) will be the City’s lead committee for community engagement, project review, and ultimately recommendations to the Council on the design matters. City staff will collaborate with the Vine Trail design team on the portion of the Trail through St. Helena.
Design options will be shared with the public and input will be solicited from residents, businesses, and property owners throughout the design phase to develop an acceptable and practical final plan for City Council approval.
Costs.
Design and Construction. The Vine Trail Coalition has a current estimate for the cost of the Yountville-St. Helena stretch of the Vine Trail project, which includes the portion within St. Helena City limits, of almost $30 Million. Construction costs are estimated to be approximately $20 Million and engineering, right-of-way, administrative and permitting costs are estimated at an additional $9 Million for a total of $29 Million or about $3 Million per mile. The Vine Trail Coalition estimates that the segments within St. Helena City Limit comprise about $5.7 Million of the grand total. It should be noted that this estimate anticipates substantial Class I path construction in Segments I and III as described above; alternate facility types (i.e. Class II, III or IV) would be much less expensive.
It is expected that after selecting the recommended alignment through the City, the 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 (through the ATSC-centered public review process noted above) and the necessary easements, engineering and traffic studies would be conducted regarding safety and conflict impacts attributed to Vine Trail.
It is anticipated that the Vine Trail would be largely funded through the Active Transportation (ATP) Grant. Below is a possible funding breakdown proposed by the Vine Trail Coalition if the grant is awarded.
$19 Million in ATP Funding
$5 Million from the County of Napa
$5 Million from the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition
$900,000 contribution from the City of St. Helena
It should be noted that the City has not agreed to the funding level, nor identified a funding source outlined by the Coalition. Clearly, our future design decisions and construction timing will be greatly influenced by costs and available sources of funds.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Maintenance Costs. It is expected that the maintenance for the Vine Trail in the City of St. Helena would be shared through a 50/50 cost share agreement between the City and NVVTC. For the proposed alignment, the maintenance cost is estimated by NVVTC at $28,000 annually ($14,000 per mile) for which the City's share would be $14,000 annually.
Again, it should be noted that for cost estimating purposes, the more labor intensive and expensive Class I path is assumed for portions of Segment I and III in St. Helena.
Maintenance costs would be greatly reduced associated with Class II, III, or IV facilities.
A cost sharing arrangement has not yet been developed. It is helpful to note that maintenance funding can be provided from the required bicycle and pedestrian facilities matching funding required by the provisions of Measure T (the countywide transportation and road improvement tax measure).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
By making a recommendation on alignment, the City is not approving a project or amending the Bicycle Plan (a component of the General Plan). Consequently, the identification of the preferred alignment for the Vine Trail through St. Helena, consistent with the existing Bike Plan, is not subject to environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Any change from the approved Bike Plan if desired in future relative to alignment or facility class type will require amendment of the General Plan and environmental review under CEQA to do so.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the proposed alignment does not incur a financial impact in the current fiscal year. However, should the approved alignment succeed in securing ATP funding, the City will likely engage in discussions regarding City contributions toward the Trail improvements in St. Helena. As noted, the NVVTC has provided an estimate of up to $900,000 in one-time construction costs and ongoing maintenance costs of $14,000 annually thereafter. The City will have the option to use its own forces for ongoing maintenance in-lieu of cash expenditure. Again, agreements for construction or maintenance funding are not in place and the funds for the construction or maintenance are not presently identified. Further, assuming funding matters are resolved, actual project construction is not presently known.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Discussion and consideration of a Preferred Alignment of the Napa Valley Vine Trail through the City of St. Helena.
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed Vine Trail Preferred Route
Yountville to St Helena - Cost Estimate
Agenda Item #10.1.
MAIN STREET - SEGMENT 1
HUNT AVE
ADAMS STREET MAIN STREET
WINE TRAIN - SEGMENT 3
PRATT AVE. - SEGMENT 3
OAK AVE. - SEGMENT 2
MITCHELL DR GRAYSON AVE.
SIDEWALK PARKING TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE SHLDR. CLASS I BIKE 10'
10' 14' 8' 12' 12'
10' SHARED PATH
2' 10' 2'
14'
14' NEW RW
CLASS I BIKE PRATT AVE
SIDEWALK OAK AVE MAIN ST (HWY29)
40'± SIDEWALK ADAMS ST32'±
EXISTING RW WINE TRAIN
4' HIGH FENCE
PARKING BIKE BLVD. PARKING PARKING BIKE BLVD.
March 31, 2022
Vine Trail - Through Town Route
St. Helena, California
Feet
0 250 500
NORTH
Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3
Agenda Item #10.1.
Segment A (Madison to Whitehall) ($ 11,749,740) 6.5 miles Segment B1 (Whitehall to Lewelling) ($ 1,670,685) 1.4 miles Segment B2 (Lewelling to Mitchell) ($ 1,487,076) 0.6 miles Segment C (Mitchell to Adams) ($ 2,625,899) 0.4 miles Source Proposed ($M) % Segment D (Adams to Pratt) ($ 1,575,720) 0.8 miles County 5.0 16% Total Estimated Cost for all Segments* ($ 19,109,120) 9.8 miles VT 5.0 16% Construction increase for 2027 @ 3% year over year ($ 3,057,459) SH-Measure T Match 0.5 2% Adjusted Total for Construction in 2027 ($ 22,166,579) SH-Paving, Measure T 0.4 1% Design, Engineering and Environmental (15%) ($ 3,325,000) ATP 20.0 65% Right of Way (allowance) ($ 1,000,000) Other grants 0%
Construction Management (8%) ($ 1,773,000) Total 30.9 100% Caltrans Review (2%) ($ 443,000)
Permits ($ 150,000) Funding Sources to investigate prior to ATP application Vine Trail Shelters and signage (allowance) - 3 total ($ 450,000) Caltrans coop on Hwy29 improvements Total* ($ 29,308,000) Costs covered by roundabouts project Cost per mile ($ 3,005,000) Other grant sources-TCA, OBAG, ?? * Includes 35% (Overhead 15% and 20% contingency)
City of St Helena Project Cost (Segments B2, C & D) ($ 5,688,695) Agenda Item #10.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Ronald Arata <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 12:24 PM
To: [email protected]; Geoff Ellsworth; Anna Chouteau; Eric Hall; Paul Dohring; Lester Hardy Cc: Preya Nixon; Public Comment
Subject: [External] Vine trail
I have read all letters and comments to city and listened to all zoom meeting on the Vine Trial. I disagree with analogies that residents, landowners, and merchants are afraid of something new and unknown. Based on all the letters and comments those objecting to either route (Oak/Adams or Pope/Church) are very clear as to their reasons.. As a family member with interest in a building on Oak Ave. I have spoken to realtors who say the loss of off‐street parking will reduce value for any potential sale for landowners on Mitchell/Oak/Adams. Particularly for those landowners with only one/two on‐site parking spaces. It will also reduce sales for some mechants and put others out of business. It will also limit options for any future tenants. Prior to the Vine Trail presentation to the Transportation and Sustainability committee back in October to my knowledge no Vine Trail personnel had directly contacted any landowner along the Mitchell/Oak/Adams. route. So, I was pleased to hear that City Manager McCann is going to hold meeting with "stakeholders" on the various routes. I did hear that there would be conversation with "stakeholders" on Church and they would be involved with any changes/design from the original route configuration.. What I did not hear is the same consideration being offered to all the landowners, merchants on Mitchell/Oak/Adams. "Stakeholders" on the MOA route should include representatives from the Methodist, Catholic, and Grace Episcopal Church as well. The loss of Sunday parking as well as parking for events such weddings, funerals, and Quinceanera's, etc would a disaster. PLEASE CITY MANAGER McCANN LET THE 'STAKEHOLDERS' OF THE MITCHELL/OAK/ADAMS ROUTE KNOW WHEN YOU PLAN TO DISCUSS PLANS WITH US FOR THE MITCHELL/OAK/ADAMS OPTION.
A council member during the city council meeting on March 22nd said sometimes it is as important to understand what is not said as to what is being said. In response to a question on future maintenance of the Vine Trail, Mr. McMinn said that one million dollars had been allocated to future maintenance of the Vine Trail. What I did not hear is that a one time allocation or annual? Is it allocated by section or first come first served? Important questions because the trial when finished is 47 miles long, and as Mr. McMinn has said "The Vine trail segment is something that will last for 100 years". Under those conditions one million dollars is not a lot of money.
During previous zoom presentations Mr. McMinn has said that all easements from St. Helena to Calistoga have been secured from Railroad Ave in St. Helena to the old train station in Calistoga. Inferring that he Vine Trail would follow the old rail tracks from SH to Calistoga. Per a recent article in the Register and Star by Barry Eberling that is not true. The Vine Trail will across back and forth from East of Hwy 29 to the West side and back again before ending in Calistoga. Users of the Trail will use a beacon to cross the highway. Given the length of a yellow caution and red light can be up to 90 seconds and the hundreds of potential daily users of the Vine Trail this may create a traffic nightmare for motorist who use Hwy. 29 between St. Helena and Calistoga
I do not know if this is a case of unintended consequences or collateral damage. Important to note because when councilman Hall asked about the status of easements from Yountville to St. Helena the response I heard was The Vine Trail has about 70/80 percent of the necessary easements secured. How many landowners are Agenda Item #10.1.
2 included in the 70/80 percent and how many linear feet of potential Vine Trail do they represent? It has been said there are some landowners who, (like Safeway for the Pope/ Church/Railroad route) do not intent to provide easements under any circumstances. What is the Vine Trail's plan B. Are they going to cross back and forth across Hwy 29? How many times? Will Caltrans approve? I find it disingenuous that Vine Trail personnel claim that without a specified route thru SH the chance of a grant are diminished when they have not secured all the easements necessary from Yountville to St. Helena.
Ron Arata
Agenda Item #10.1.
Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 12 Apr 2022
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Subject: Discussion and Direction regarding Parking Impact Overlay District Potential Policy Changes to Incorporate into
Comprehensive Zoning Code Update
CEQA
Determination:
Exempt
Prepared By: Maya DeRosa, Planning & Building Director
Reviewed By: April Mitts, Administrative Services Director Approved By: James C. McCann, Interim City Manager
BACKGROUND
As part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, City staff and the Zoning Code Subcommittee are evaluating current parking regulations and whether current policies and regulations should be continued or terminated. One specific topic discussed at the February 9, 2022 Zoning Code Subcommittee meeting related to the existing Parking Impact Overlay District. Over the past few years and particularly post the arrival of the pandemic, the City has received public feedback to eliminate the in-lieu fee and also the requirement to meet any parking requirement in the the Overlay District which encompasses most of the downtown (Attachment 1). Staff desires City Council policy direction on the Parking Impact Overlay regulations so it can be incorporated into the public review draft of the zoning code.
DISCUSSION
As part of this report preparation, staff gathered input from other departments on the state of parking downtown. The feedback received from the Police Department is that we have historically been short on downtown parking spaces, far more vehicles than spaces which is why we have timed parking. Local businesses do not have designated parking for employees and are routinely cited for taking up parking spaces all day long.
Parking in downtown Saint Helena is challenging, especially in the summer months when tourism is high.
Agenda Item #11.1.
In-Lieu Fee
On January 26, 1999, the City Council adopted an ordinance for a Parking Impact Overlay District and in-lieu parking fee provisions. Subsequently, on February 23, 1999, the City Council approved a resolution (Attachment 2) establishing an in-lieu parking fee of $7,000 per required space. This was based on a study that concluded that by the year 2010, the City would need to provide a new 30-space parking lot to accommodate overflow parking from the Central Business District at an estimated cost of $210,000.
Since the time of the adoption of this ordinance and the goal to create a 30 space parking lot, the City has achieved the goal through the realization of the Oak Street parking lot (28 spaces). There are no other City owned public parking lots in the Overlay District. As noted below in the General Plan discussion and on Attachment 3, there is a lot on Mitchell Drive identified as a future parking site (currently owned by PG&E).
The current balance of the Parking Impact Fund is $644,519. Below is a summary of the annual deposit history over the past five years. The majority of what is reported below is consists of investment earnings:
FY17: $4,272
FY18: $5,156
FY19: $6,086
FY20: $6,652
FY21: $66,896 (1299 Adams Street new office building paid $63,000 for parking in-lieu fee)
1993 General Plan
The 1993 General Plan included an Exhibit (Attachment 3) noting the Parking Impact Area boundaries and a list of sites within this area where potential parking spaces could be developed. In reviewing that exhibit, all of the six sites identified are privately owned and many have already been developed with private parking. The Mitchell Street site remains unimproved and would require purchasing from PG&E. 2019 General Plan
In the currently adopted General Plan, there are policy references to parking facilities and the Parking Impact Area as follows:
Implementing Action LU3.G
"Pursue acquisition of 1301 Mitchell Lane to provide additional public parking facilities, or other City prioritized uses, in the Central Business District." Implementing Action CR5.B
"Develop and maintain an off-street parking program for the City's existing Parking Impact Area and consider modifying the boundaries of that area. The program will identify and prioritize locations where additional off-street parking can be provided.
When sufficient funds have accumulated for the acquisition of a site and construction of parking on that site, commence with implementation of providing parking on that site." Agenda Item #11.1.
It does not appear that the City has developed an off-street parking program or previously prepared a downtown parking study to address parking demand. If a consultant was retained to prepare a parking study, the City would have more clarity on if a parking shortage exists and if so, identify a target number of spaces and priority locations, including if the 1301 Mitchell Drive site is still a relevant parking opportunity site. An updated set of parking policies and regulations including possible modification to Overlay District boundaries and in lieu fee could be developed. Alternatively, the City Council could find that parking needs have been met and modify or terminate portions or the entire program.
Zoning
As noted in Attachment 4, the purpose of the Parking Impact Overlay District pursuant to 17.104.10 is:
"It is the purpose of the Parking Impact Overlay District to establish parking standards for portions of the City generally located within the Central Business District. That area so designated on the zoning map of the City is found and declared to be an area impacted by the inadequacy in the amount of off-street parking because the buildings and structures therein were constructed in the early history of the city when automobiles were not a predominant feature in the community and are of historic and unique character and should be preserved." The Parking Impact Overlay District establishes minimum parking standards which are less restrictive than the parking standards that apply to the remainder of the City, recognizing that this area is within a National Register Historic District as well as the physical challenges of limited undeveloped space downtown. In circumstances noted in Section 17.104.030, where on sites within the Parking Impact Overlay District "any new use, structure or building on a site which, due to the size or location of parcel, cannot be provided with required off-street parking or in a case where it is found by the City to be in the public interest to not require off-street parking on a site, parking requirements may be satisfied by payment of an in-lieu fee upon approval of a use permit." More and more cities are moving in the direction of reducing or eliminating parking requirements, particularly in downtowns where mixed uses flourish and pedestrian connectivity is emphasized. Even with the option to pay in-lieu fees at $7,000 per required space rather than physically constructing parking on site, staff is aware that this fee can be a burden on developers. Feedback from a downtown stakeholders meeting in 2021 urged the City to eliminate parking requirements and the parking in-lieu fee.
Comparison of Impact Fees from other cities
As noted on Attachment 5, in general, all the other cities staff researched have in-lieu fees which have been more recently updated and are considerably more than St.
Helena's $7,000 per space in-lieu fee. It is also important to keep in mind that the fees will vary greatly depending on the parking goals and authorized uses of the collected funds unique to each city. For example, if a city identifies a need to build a parking Agenda Item #11.1.
structure, that will result in a much greater in-lieu fee than if the fee is intended to build future surface parking spaces. Below is a brief summary of some of the in lieu parking fees and how they are applied in other cities:
Calistoga: The City has adopted a two tier fee structure depending on what type of project is proposed. Tier 1 applies to a structural expansion or modification that is no more than 10 percent of the existing floor area. Fee is $2842 per space. Tier 2 applies to properties or uses meeting one or both of the following conditions: a) the existing vacant lot is insufficient in size for both structures and parking; b) structural expansion or modification greater than 10 percent. Fee is $23,985 per space. Calistoga reported that it is overall satisfied with the program, but if they were to modify it, the goal would be to provide more flexibility about what projects are eligible for parking in-lieu funds, so the City could fund alternative projects, like ped/bike programs for example.
Healdsburg: In the zoning code the City has created a "Downtown Parking Exemption" area and generally, uses and structures located within this area are not required to provide on-site parking. Projects within this area that are new construction pay a fee of $15,730 per space and if it is a change of use, the fee is $6506 per space. There are some exceptions which include: 1) new single family units must provide one space per unit; 2) For city required spaces in place as of September 2, 1998, no spaces are to be removed except where there are five or fewer such spaces located at the front of a site between the sidewalk and building; and 3) sites with a net lot area of 15,000 s.f. or more which are 50% developed or less based on the maximum building intensity established by the Land Use Code, must provide a minimum of 50% of the non-retail parking required by Section 20.16.150 or parking must be provided within 300 feet of the site.
Napa: The City has a Parking Exempt District. Walker Parking prepared a comprehensive parking study for the downtown in 2015. The overall goal was to ensure that downtown Napa and the Oxbow District continue as thriving business districts for the benefit of business and property owners as well as community residents.
One of the recommendations was to increase the Parking Impact Fee pursuant to a Nexus Study. The current n lieu parking fee is $23,000.
Both Sonoma and Yountville do not have an in-lieu parking fee program in their downtowns and parking standards apply.
Possible Policy Questions and Options
In evaluating if changes should be made to the current Parking Impact Overlay District and in-lieu fee structure, some questions to consider include:
Agenda Item #11.1.
1. Does the City have a need to provide additional off street public parking? (Note this would ideally be studied by a professional parking consultant in concert with a list of future anticipated development in or near the downtown).
2. In a post-pandemic business recovery climate, should the the City temporarily suspend the requirement for new businesses in the Parking Impact Overlay Zone to provide on-site parking and waive in-lieu fees until an updated study is prepared for consideration by the City Council (but require that any existing on-site parking be maintained)?
3. Does the City desire to develop a Downtown Master Plan? (A parking study would typically accompany this work effort). The scope of a Downtown Master Plan would: set forth a vision for redevelopment opportunities (development nodes) and future catalytic sites with development concept; identify key multi-modal circulation opportunities to serve these key development activity nodes; identify streetscape design treatments that create a sense of arrival and strong identity while in the downtown; recommend parking strategies to serve the downtown; and base implementation recommendations from an economic analysis of the downtown.
Option 1: Slight Change
In the Zoning Code Update, keep the requirement of the current in-lieu fee and parking standards as drafted with the exception of eliminating the use permit requirement for using the in-lieu fee option.
Option 2: Remove Fee and Parking Requirements
In the Zoning Code Update, remove the requirement to pay the in-lieu fee and remove parking requirements for new development and change of uses. Re-title this overlay zone to "Parking Exemption Overlay District."
Option 3: Status quo with slight change and a goal to fund and complete a downtown parking study and parking in-lieu fee study
In the Zoning Code Update, keep the requirement of the current in-lieu fee and parking standards as drafted with the exception of eliminating the use permit requirement for using the in-lieu fee option.
Additionally, following the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, solicit proposals from parking consultants to study parking needs downtown to determine if there is still a need to require an in-lieu parking fee. If yes: (1) Confirm the boundaries of the Overlay District; (2) Identify future parking sites and number of spaces needed; and (3) Identify cost to build parking and recommended in-lieu fee.
Option 4: Implement Option 2 with goal to fund and complete a downtown parking study and parking in-lieu fee study
In the Zoning Code Update, remove the requirement to pay the in-lieu fee and remove parking requirements for new development and change of uses. Re-name this overlay zone to "Parking Exemption Overlay District."
Agenda Item #11.1.
Additionally, following the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, solicit proposals from parking consultants to study parking needs downtown to determine if there is still a need to require an in-lieu parking fee. If yes: (1) Confirm the boundaries of the Overlay District; (2) Identify future parking sites and number of spaces needed; and (3) Identify cost to build parking and recommended in-lieu fee.
Option 5: Conduct community outreach with the Chamber to engage the business community.
Beyond the Zoning Code Subcommittee and the downtown stakeholders group of 5 participants, there has not been broader community engagement on this topic. The local business community has a vested interest in how the parking environment accommodates the need of customers to find parking. By getting feedback from both the Chamber and local businesses on current parking conditions, it can help identify strengths and weaknesses in the current downtown parking and direct the City on how to proceed. This task could also be a component of a parking study prepared by a consultant.
Of the above options, staff finds Option 4 responds to some of the stakeholder feedback about the current challenges with the current Parking Impact Overlay District and associated in lieu fee. It would also allow for the City to formally understand the baseline downtown parking dynamics through a parking study and recommendations on what is needed to ensure downtown parking challenges are mitigated and recommendations on the in lieu fee.
Next Steps
To implement this option, the zoning code consultant would revise the regulations in the zoning code for the Parking Impact Overlay District. Following the code adoption, staff would prepare a formal scope of work to prepare a comprehensive parking study for the downtown and study the in lieu parking fee. A consultant would be hired to prepare the study and recommendations would be shared with the community, Planning Commission and City Council throughout the process prior to receiving a final report.
Depending on if and what parking gap exists, the report may need to calibrate a proposed new in lieu parking fee and if City Council was in agreement with the conclusions of the study, an ordinance amendment to reinstate a parking in lieu fee would be processed.
FISCAL IMPACT
Revenues collected through Parking In-Lieu fees are placed in a designated Parking InLieu fund - Fund 745 and are not General Fund revenues. The current balance of Fund 745 is $644,000 with the majority of the balance being carried over from year to year in an interest bearing account. Other than interest earnings, the most recent deposit of $63,000 was made in FY 2020 with additional deposits totaling $12,600 made between 2012 and 2018.
If the City Council decided to eliminate the in lieu parking impact fee and not construct parking, the City Attorney would advise staff as to what action would be necessary in Agenda Item #11.1.
order to allow for the use of accumulated funds for other downtown parking uses such as parking lot maintenance and improvement (asphalt, lighting, landscaping, shade structures, EVCs, etc) or for enforcement (meters or auto license plate readers).
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1-Parking Impact Overlay Map
Attachment 2- Resolution 1999-22 Parking In Lieu Fee
Attachment 3-Parking impact_district 1993 General Plan
Attachment 4-PI Zoning District_17.104
Attachment 5-Comparison of Parking Impact Fees
Agenda Item #11.1.
??Hunts Grove Park Transfer/Stabo
St Helena
Legend
Urban Limit
Boundary
Downtown
Parking
Parks
Cities
St Helena
Parcels
(Partner)
County
Boundary
[
Printed On: 3/7/2022
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Parking Impact Overlay mi
Disclaimer: This map w as preparedfor informational
purposes only. No liability is assumed for the
County of Napa | ITS Dept accuracy of the data delineated hereon.
Agenda Item #11.1.
RECITALS
By the year 2010, the City predictsthat it will need to provi de
parking lot anewn30- at
space estimated cost of $210,000. The entire cost of this parking l o
t
in-lieu befrom paidrking
impact fees. This project is currently being studied by the C it
y,
anbeing collected for ?mds are
d the project.
Pursuant to City Code Section 27.207, any new use, structur e,
buil site located ornawithin
ding the overlay district that, due to the size or location of the par cel
,
beprovided with car
mot required off-street parking, parking requirementsmay be sat is?
ed
in-lieu byof fee. anpayment
The in-lieu fee shall be set by resolution of the City Council . The City included the required ?ndings for the Parking Imp act
Study Fee inthe Fe Impact
e February 1997. All ?ndings from that report are still applic able,
exists reaonabl and nexus a
e between this type of improvement and the type of developm ent
These tha isbeing assessed.
t findings will be reviewed periodically to insure that the fees ade qua
te. RESOLUTION
The City Council hereby sets the amount of the in-lieu parki ng
fee rquired at per $7,000.
00 space. This amount shall remain in effect until changed by r e
s
o
l
u
ti
o
n
City the of All Council.
?mds collected shall be depositedin the Parking In-Lieu Im pac
t
Fund, and oly beused for Fee
the purpose of acquiring and constructing a parking lot with in
Parki Overlay thImpact
nge District.
Approved at a Regular Meeting of the the byFebruary 23, 1999 onCity Hel Council ena following vote:
Ayes: CouncilrnembersBrown, Potter
, Toller Slavens, Mayor
Noes: None
APPROVED: ATTEST:
’ $c\.
rank Toller eGuijosa la
Mayor Citylerk
RESO
LUTI
ON
99-22 NO.
ESTABLISHI
NG
IN- PARKING
LIEU FEES WI
THI
N
PARKING THE
IMPACT OV
ER
LA
Y
DISTRIC
T
C
I
T
Y
HELENA OF ST. Agenda Item #11.1.
Attached for your review and action is a resolutionthe of amount parking in-lieu fee.
The amount contained in the resolution is the samewh isnow being for this charged at purpose. The amount is based on the cost of $210,
000
for a30- parking lot the inmpact
space area.
This amount can only be changed after holding thepublic and making the hearings required ?ndings that were contained in the Impac
t
Stud bythe adopted Council 1997. in
y As new project costs are identi?ed, then the amoun
t
sbeadjusted thatime. at the City As
h
o
u
l
d
gets closer to having current costs for the project, t neadjust the fe arise. Until tohat my ed time, the current project estimates and fee amount rema the level contained at in in resolution.
This matter and process has been reviewed with th
e
Attor and the adoption of attached
ney, resolution is recommended at this time.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the resolution as presented.
February199
9 To: Mayor a
n
d
Ciounci
tyl
FROM: Director Fi
na
nc
e
RE: Resoluti
on
EIn-Lieu Parking Fees
st
ab
lis
hi
n
g
6 4,
. . 5.
0'0
Agenda Item #11.1.
«
E
.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Chapter 17.104
PARKING IMPACT OVERLAY (PI) DISTRICT
Sections:
17.104.010 Purpose.
17.104.020 Parking standards.
17.104.030 In-lieu fee provisions.
17.104.010 Purpose.
It is the purpose of the parking impact overlay district to establish parking standards for portions of the city generally located within the central business district. That area so designated on the zoning map of the city is found and declared to be an area impacted by the inadequacy in the amount of off-street parking because the buildings and structures therein were constructed in the early history of the city when automobiles were not a predominant feature in the community and are of historic and unique character and should be preserved. (Prior code § 27.205)
17.104.020 Parking standards.
Within the parking impact overlay area, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 17.124 as to business and commercial buildings, the following shall apply:
A. The basic parking requirement for buildings existing as of February 1, 1980, shall be at least one space for each one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of ground floor area and one space for each two thousand four hundred (2,400) square feet floor area of basement or upper floors (floor area to include exterior measurements).
B. The parking requirement for additional occupancies, or additions to a structure existing as of February 1, 1980, or a new structure shall be as required in Chapter 17.124.
1. The parking requirement for buildings which are being converted to create additional occupancies not less than one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in area shall be one space per six hundred (600) square feet.
2. The parking requirement for buildings which are being converted to additional occupancies less than one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in area shall be one space per three hundred (300) square feet.
C. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary in this section, parking requirements for change in category of uses in the parking impact area shall equal the difference between what would require for the new use, minus what Chapter 17.124 would require for the previous use.
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 21-7, passed December 14, 2021.
St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 17.104 PARKING IMPACT OVERLAY (PI) DISTRICT Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item #11.1.
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 17.140, an existing building may be substantially remodeled for purposes of historical preservation or restoration without the provision of additional off-street parking, provided:
1. There is no increase in floor area;
2. Any existing off-street parking is maintained;
3. There is no increase in occupancy defined as follows:
For purposes of this section, change or increase in occupancy shall also include the following:
a. Change from a nonconforming use to a permitted use;
b. Change in “group occupancy” as defined in the 1976 Uniform Building Code; c. Change between uses requiring parking specified in Chapter 17.124; d. Increase in the number of leaseholders, tenant spaces, or commercial spaces owned, franchised, rented or leased above that existing on April 14, 1981. (Prior code § 27.206)
17.104.030 In-lieu fee provisions.
For any new use, structure, or building on a site which, due to the size or location of the parcel, cannot be provided with required off-street parking, or in a case where it is found by the city to be in the public interest to not require off-street parking on a site, parking requirements may be satisfied by payment of an in-lieu fee upon approval of a use permit by the planning commission as follows:
A. The property on which the use is proposed must be located within a parking impact overlay district.
B. The amount of the in-lieu parking fee shall be established by city resolution.
C. Approval of a use permit to allow payment of an in-lieu fee shall include the finding that the properties and land uses surrounding the project will not be significantly impacted by waiving the required off-street parking. (Prior code § 27.207)
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 21-7, passed December 14, 2021.
St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 17.104 PARKING IMPACT OVERLAY (PI) DISTRICT Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item #11.1.
Comparison of In-Lieu Parking Fees
City In-Lieu Fee
(per parking space)
Notes
St Helena $7000
Calistoga $2842-Tier 1
$23,985-Tier 2
Tier 1:
Structural expansion or modification that is no
more than 10 percent of the existing floor area.
Tier 2:
Properties or uses meeting one or both of the
following conditions: a. The existing vacant lot is
insufficient in size for both structures and
parking.
b. Structural expansion or modification greater
than 10 percent
Healdsburg $15,730 New Construction.
If change of use fee is $6506/space
Napa $23,000
Palo Alto $115,404 Downtown Assessment District
Mountain View $26,000
Agenda Item #11.1.
City Council
April 12, 2022
Parking Impact Overlay District
Discussion
Agenda Item #11.1.
Background: Parking Impact
Overlay District
• Tonite is a policy discussion to provide feedback to staff regarding whether changes should be made to the current Parking Impact Overlay District as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update
• Zoning Code Subcommittee on February 9, 2022 recommended this topic be discussed by the City Council prior to making any changes to the public review draft • At a Downtown Stakeholder meeting last year hosted by the Planning Department and consultant LWC, there was feedback that the City should eliminate the parking in lieu fee as it is an impediment to new businesses coming to downtown Agenda Item #11.1.
Map of Parking Impact Overlay District Agenda Item #11.1.
Background:
Parking In-Lieu Fee
• Parking Impact Overlay District and parking in lieu fee provisions were established January 26, 1999
• In Lieu parking fee of $7000 per space was created on February 23, 1999. • Fee was based on a study that concluded by year 2010 the City would need to provide a new 30-space parking lot to accommodate overflow parking from the Central Business District (estimated cost $210,000)
• City realized this goal of 30 space lot with the opening of the Oak Street parking lot • There are no other city owned parking lots in the Overlay District • No formal downtown parking study has been prepared and the in lieu fee has not been updated since 1999
Agenda Item #11.1.
How much has been collected to
date?
• The current fund balance is $644,519
• In the past 5 years, because of the limited amount of new development downtown, only one deposit has been made from the parking in lieu fees resulting from the new building at 1299 Adams Street ($66,896) • All the remaining past five years of account growth is the result of interest earned
Agenda Item #11.1.
2019 General Plan
Implementing Action LU3.G
"Pursue acquisition of 1301 Mitchell Lane to provide additional public parking facilities, or other City prioritized uses, in the Central Business District."
Implementing Action CR5.B
"Develop and maintain an off-street parking program for the City's existing Parking Impact Area and consider modifying the boundaries of that area. The program will identify and prioritize locations where additional off-street parking can be provided. When sufficient funds have accumulated for the acquisition of a site and construction of parking on that site, commence with implementation of providing parking on that site.“ Status: City has not yet developed an off-street parking program or previously prepared a downtown parking study to address the level of parking demand and need. If a consultant was retained to prepare a parking study, the City would have more clarity on if a parking shortage exists and if so, identify a target number of spaces and priority locations, including if the 1301 Mitchell Drive site is still a relevant parking opportunity site.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Options for Discussion
(note all options include preserving existing on and off street parking) Option 1: Slight Change
In the Zoning Code Update, keep the requirement of the current in lieu fee and parking standards as drafted with the exception of eliminating the use permit requirement for using the in lieu fee option.
Option 2: Remove Fee and Parking Requirements
In the Zoning Code Update, remove the requirement to pay the in-lieu fee and remove parking requirements for new development and change of uses. Re-title this overlay zone to “Parking Exemption Overlay District”.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Options for Discussion
Option 3: Status quo with slight change and a goal to fund and complete a downtown parking study and parking in-lieu fee study
In the Zoning Code Update, keep the requirement of the current in lieu fee and parking standards as drafted with the exception of eliminating the use permit requirement for using the in lieu fee option.
Scope of proposed downtown parking study: 1) study parking needs downtown; 2) analyze in-lieu parking fee; 3) confirm boundaries of Overlay District; 4) identify future parking sites and number of spaces needed; and 4) identify cost and recommended in-lieu fee.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Options for Discussion
Option 4: Implement Option 2 with goal to fund and complete a downtown parking study and parking in-lieu fee study
In the Zoning Code Update, remove the requirement to pay the in-lieu fee and remove parking requirements for new development and change of uses. Re-title this overlay zone to “Parking Exemption Overlay District”.
Scope of proposed downtown parking study same as Option 3 Agenda Item #11.1.
Options for Discussion
Option 5: Conduct Community Outreach with the Chamber to engage the business community
By getting feedback from both the Chamber and local businesses on current parking conditions, it can help identify strengths and weaknesses in the current downtown parking environment and direct the City on how to proceed. This task could also be a component of a parking study prepared by a consultant.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Questions for Discussion
• Does Downtown St. Helena have a parking problem?
• In a post pandemic business recovery climate, should the City temporarily suspend the requirement for new businesses in the Parking Impact Overlay District to provide onsite parking and waive the in lieu fees until an updated study is prepared for consideration by the City Council?
• Does the City desire to develop a Downtown Master Plan? (A downtown parking study would typically accompany this work effort) Agenda Item #11.1.
Questions and Discussion
Agenda Item #11.1.