St. Helena City Council
July 21, 2022

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-65
Demographic Trends
Age Distribution
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed.

Figure 7 shows population growth trends. In St. Helena, the median age in 2000 was 39.2; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at around 49 years. More specifically, the population of those under 14 has decreased since 2010, while the 65- and-over population has increased.

Figure 7 Population Growth Trends
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-04.

Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing. People of color make up 4.3 percent of seniors and 31.2 percent of youth under 18 (Figure 8). 359 869 649685 877917 566 400
407
221
313
738
682
629
704
805
822
564
334
223
365
541
675
601
539
846
898
943
487
206
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Age 0-4 Age 5-14 Age 15-24Age 25-34Age 35-44Age 45-54Age 55-64Age 65-74Age 75-84 Age 85+ Population
2000 2010 2019
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-66
Figure 8 Senior and Youth Population by Race
Universe: Total population
Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and an overlapping category of Hispanic / non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-02.

Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today. Since 2000, the percentage of residents in St. Helena identifying as White has decreased – and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased – by 4.6 percent, with the 2019 population standing at 3,973. In absolute terms, the Hispanic or Latinx population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most.

Figure 9 shows population trends by race.
29%
15%
69%
82%
96%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age 0-17 Age 18-64 Age 65+
Population
White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-67
Figure 9 Population by Race, St. Helena, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B03002
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-02.

Income
Household Income Distribution
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state.7 7 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute ofCalifornia. 70% 63% 65%
29% 33% 31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2010 2019
Share of Population
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic Asian / API, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic Hispanic or Latinx Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-68
Household Income Categories
The Department of Housing and Urban Development defines income categories as a percentage of the Area Median Income (AMI). Households whose income equals 30 percent or less of the AMI are considered extremely low-income; households with incomes between 30 and 50 percent of the AMI are classified as very low-income; and those between 50 and 80 percent of the AFI are low-income. The CHAS data set also provides information on households earning between 80 and 100 percent of the AMI and households with incomes above 100 percent of the AMI.

In St. Helena, 56.8 percent of households make more than 100 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI)8, compared to 15.8 percent making less than 30 percent of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (Figure 10).

Figure 10 Households by Household Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), 8 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). This is then adjusted for household size. 16% 10% 15%
11%
12%
11%
11%
15% 13%
5% 10% 9%
57% 53% 52%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
St. Helena Napa County Bay Area
Percent of Households
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-69
and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the county where that household is located. Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households (0-30 percent AMI) in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50 percent AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. As Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers, this document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income households. The report portion of the housing data needs packet contains more specific guidance for how local staff can calculate an estimate for projected extremely low-income households once jurisdictions receive their 6th cycle RHNA numbers.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-01.

Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters. Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households. In St. Helena, the largest proportion of renters falls in the Greater than 100 percent of AMI income group, while the largest proportion of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100 percent of AMI group (Figure 11).

Figure 11 Household Income Level by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), 215 83124 90 1,044 180200 145 45 378 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-70
and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-21.

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result offederal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents.9 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement or homelessness. In St. Helena, Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (Figure 12).

Figure 12 Poverty Status by Race
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is determined.
9 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.

14.0%

11.9%

7.9%

5.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0%
Hispanic or Latinx
Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and NonHispanic) White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
White, Non-Hispanic
Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and NonHispanic) Percent of Households in Racial / Ethnic Group
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-71
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-03.

Extremely Low-Income Households
In St. Helena, 56.8 percent of households make more than 100 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), compared to 15.8 percent making less than 30 percent of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 10). Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100 percent AMI, while 15 percent make less than 30 percent AMI. In Napa County, 30 percent AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $27,950 for a family of four. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers, and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

Within the Housing Element, cities must estimate the extremely low-income housing need in the community.

Based on HCD guidance, the City of St. Helena estimates that approximately 52 extremely low-income housing units are needed in the planning period. This estimate was calculated based on HCD guidance, as 50 percent of the very low-income housing need, as identified by the RHNA (Table 6).

Table 6 St. Helena Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Geography
Very Low
Income (<50
percent of
AMI)
Low Income
(50%-80
percent of
AMI)
Moderate
Income (80%-
120 percent of
AMI)
Above
Moderate
Income (>120
percent of
AMI)
St. Helena 1031 59 26 66
1 Per HCD guidance, the extremely low-income need in St. Helena is estimated at 50 percent of the very low income RHNA requirement, or approximately 52 units.

Employment Trends
Balance of Jobs and Workers
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewherein the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub-regional scale.

One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them.

Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in St. Helena decreased by 34.2 percent (Figure 13).

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-72
Figure 13 Jobs in St. Helena
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-11.

There are 3,005 employed residents, and 5,476 jobs10 in St. Helena - the ratio of jobs to resident workers is

1.82; St. Helena is a net importer of workers. Figure 14 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively low-income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear.

St. Helena has more low-wage jobs than low-wage residents (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). This disparity implies that, every day, low wage workers commute to St. Helena from their residences outside of the city. At the other end of the wage spectrum, the city has more high-wage jobs than high-wage residents (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000). This figure suggests that high-wage 10 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported in Figure 5 as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey. 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-73
workers are also commuting into St. Helena. Since both high wage workers and low wage workers are faced with commuting into St. Helena for work, it suggests a lack of housing, both market-rate and affordable, within the city. (Figure 14).11
Figure 14 Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-10.

Figure 15 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident workers to the jobs located there for different wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of one means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above one indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region (Figure 15). 11 The source table is top-coded at $75,000, precluding more fine grained analysis at the higher end of the wage spectrum. 323380 802 453 1,047 599 933 1,660 1,260 1,583 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Less than $9,999 $10,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 or more Worker Population
Place of Residence Place of Work
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-74
Figure 15 Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-14.

Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community. New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs.

This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate, it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.

If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high jobs to household ratio. Thus, bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in St. Helena has decreased from 3.47 in 2002, to 2.23 jobs per household in 2018 (Figure 16).

1.50 2.00

2.50 3.00

3.50 4.00

4.50 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ratio
Wages Less Than $1,250/Mo Wages $1,250-$3,333/Mo Wages More than $3,333/Mo Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-75
Figure 16 Jobs-Household Ratio
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; households in a jurisdiction Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs-household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-13.

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ratio
St. Helena Napa County Bay Area
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-76
Employment by Industry
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which St. Helena residents work is Health & Educational Services, and the largest sector in which Napa residents work is Health & Educational Services (Figure 17). For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers of any sector.

Figure 17 Resident Employment by Industry
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Categories are derived from the following source tables:

Agriculture & Natural Resources: C24030_003E, C24030_030E; Construction: C24030_006E, C24030_033E; Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation: C24030_007E, C24030_034E, C24030_008E, C24030_035E, C24030_010E, C24030_037E; Retail:

C24030_009E, C24030_036E; Information: C24030_013E, C24030_040E; Financial & Professional Services: C24030_014E, C24030_041E, C24030_017E, C24030_044E; Health & Educational Services: C24030_021E, C24030_024E, C24030_048E, C24030_051E; Other: C24030_027E, C24030_054E, C24030_028E, C24030_055E Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-06. 3% 5%
3%
6%
6%
19%
15% 26%
35% 35%
30%
4%
21% 19%
17%
10% 10% 9%
7% 8% 8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
St. Helena Napa County Bay Area
Share of Employed Residents
Other
Retail
Manufacturing, Wholesale &
Transportation
Information
Health & Educational Services
Financial & Professional Services
Construction
Agriculture & Natural Resources
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-77
Unemployment
Figure 18 shows the unemployment rate for St. Helena, Napa County, and the Bay Area. In St. Helena, there was a 1.3 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021.

Jurisdictions through the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020.

Figure 18 Unemployment Rate
Universe: Civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older Notes: Unemployment rates for the jurisdiction level is derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level. If this assumption is not true for a specific sub-county area, then the estimates for that area may not be representative of the current economic conditions. Since this assumption is untested, caution should be employed when using these data. Only not seasonallyadjusted labor force (unemployment rates) data are developed for cities and CDPs.

Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-15. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Percent of Labor Force that is Unemployed
St. Helena Napa County Bay Area
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-78

4. Population and Employment Projections
This section uses population, household, and employment projections provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the California Department of Finance (DoF), and Plan Bay Area. Data specific to St. Helena is used when available (typically from Plan Bay Area 2040) and is supplemented by regional projections for North Napa County (Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville) and the Bay Area, available through the recently (2021) released Plan Bay Area 2050.

Key Findings
• ABAG anticipates much higher growth across the Bay Area than in St. Helena. While Plan Bay Area 2050 projects a 35 percent increase in total population from 2015 to 2050 (approximately 2.7 million new residents) across the nine counties of the Bay Area, it projects less than one percent growth in Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville.

Population
While Plan Bay Area 2050 does not provide jurisdiction-specific population projections, Plan Bay Area 2040 (2017) projected a 17 percent increase in total population from 2010 to 2040 for St. Helena, which translates to 1,550 new residents, as shown in Table 7. Countywide, Plan Bay Area 2040 projected a similar increase of 16 percent for Napa County.

Table 7 St. Helena, Population Totals and Projections, 2010-2040, Plan Bay Area 2040 Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Percent
Change
(2010-
2040)
St. Helena 5,830 5,920 6,085 6,415 6,655 6,715 6,800 +17% Napa County 135,880 136,885 141,240 146,130 151,445 155,860 158,050 +16% Source: Plan Bay Area 2040.

For comparison, the DoF projects a countywide increase of seven percent in total population between 2010 to 2050, which translates to 9,463 new Napa County residents (Table 8).

Table 8 Department of Finance Population Projections, Napa County, 2010-2050 Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Percent
Change
St. Helena 136,587 141,390 138,711 140,748 143,223 145,444 146,602 146,641 146,050 +7% Source: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.

ABAG anticipates much higher growth across the Bay Area then in St. Helena. While Plan Bay Area 2050 projects a 35 percent increase in total population from 2015 to 2050 (approximately 2.7 million new residents) Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-79
across the nine counties of the Bay Area, the Plan projects less than one percent growth in the North Napa County superdistrict (including Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville). Table 9 and Figure 19 show Plan Bay Area 2050 population projections for the Bay Area. While the Plan includes this regional population totals, data for individual subregions, termed superdistricts, is provided for households and jobs rather than population. For more information, please see the discussions on household and job projections below.

Table 9 Plan Bay Area 2050 Population Projections, Bay Area, 2015-2050 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Percent
Change
Bay
Area 7,660,000 7,940,000 8,230,000 8,560,000 9,010,000 9,490,000 9,930,000 10,330,000 +35% Source: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-2A: Total Population Projections, California Counties, 2010-2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2020 Release). Sacramento: California. July 2021.

Figure 19 Bay Area, Population Totals and Projections, 1990-2050, Plan Bay Area 2050.

Source: Plan Bay Area 2050.

Households
In 2017, Plan Bay Area 2040 projected a one percent increase in total households from 2010-2040 in St. Helena, which translates to 300 or more new households (Table 10). Similarly, Plan Bay Area 2050 projects that the number of households in the Northern Napa County superdistrict (including Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville) will grow by less than one percent by 2050, compared to 51 percent growth in the projected number of households in the Bay Area (Table 11).

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-80
Table 10 Table 2: St. Helena, Household Totals and Projections, 2010-2040, Plan Bay Area 2040 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Total Households 2,150 2,400 2,425 2,490 2,620 2,705 2,700 For 2010, the base year, a tabulation from the 2010 pre-run microdata, designed to approximate (but may still differ from) Census 2010 counts, is used. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 2015 are modeled estimates, not observed.

Source: Plan Bay Area 2040.

Table 11 Household Projections by Region, 2015-2050
Region 2015 2050 Growth
Percent
Growth
Share of
Regional
Growth
North Napa County 16,000 16,000 0 <1% 0%
Bay Area 2,677,000 4,043,000 1,366,000 +51% 100%
Source: Plan Bay Area 2050.

Jobs
According to Plan Bay Area 2040, ABAG projected in increase of 280 jobs (five percent increase) between 2010 and 2040, which calculates to an annual average growth rate of 0.8 percent (Table 12). Employment is projected to increase in three categories: retail (+27 percent), Information, Government, and Construction (+12 percent), and Health, Educational, and Recreational Services Jobs (+5 percent). In contrast, ABAG expects that employment in the areas of manufacturing and wholesale; agriculture and natural resources, and financial and professional services to stagnate or slightly decrease. Countywide, Plan Bay Area 2040 projected an increase of 12,765 jobs (18 percent increase) at annual average employment growth rate of 2.8 percent in the same time period.

Table 12 Job Totals and Projections, St. Helena and Napa County, 2010-2040 Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Percent
Change
(2010-
2040)
St. Helena 5,700 5,750 5,765 5,805 5,820 5,820 5,980 5% Napa County 70,680 70,880 71,905 72,580 74,255 77,260 83,355 18% Source: Plan Bay Area 2040.

Plan Bay Area 2050, however, projects that employment in the North Napa County superdistrict will decrease by 4,000 jobs by 2050 (Table 13). Employment in the region is assumed to be constrained based on limited job centers and transit options, as well as current and potential future wildfire impacts. Regionally however, the Bay Area job totals are projected to increase by 35 percent between 2015 and 2050, which coincides with the expected Bay Area population growth during that time (also 35 percent). This increase translates to 1,403,000 new jobs.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-81
Table 13 Job Totals and Projections, North Napa County and the Bay Area, 2015-2050 Region 2015 2050 Growth
Percent
Growth
Share of
Regional
Growth
North Napa County 24,000 20,000 -4,000 <1% 0%
Bay Area 4,005,000 5,408,000 1,403,000 35% 100%
Source: Plan Bay Area 2050.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-82

5. Housing Conditions
The following section details the housing conditions in St. Helena and, where available, compares the data to Napa County and the Bay Area. Data sources include the Census, the American Community Survey, DoF, HUD, including the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset, and HCD).

ABAG supplied an HCD Preapproved Data Package that provided much of the data included in this analysis for the City. Additionally, ABAG, in coordination with Baird + Driskell Community Planning provided a Housing Needs Data Report that directly informed this section of the Needs Analysis.12 Key Findings
• Number of Homes. The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in St. Helena increased, 4.4 percent from 2010 to 2020, which is above the growth rate for Napa County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period.
• Home Prices. A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all St. Helena residents to live and thrive in the community.
– Ownership. The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $1 million-$1.5 million in 2019. Home prices increased by 118.2 percent from 2010 to 2020. – Rental Prices. The typical contract rent for an apartment in St. Helena was $1,470 in 2019.

Rental prices increased by 15.7 percent from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $59,160 per year. • Housing Type. It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 63.9 percent of homes in St. Helena were single family detached, 6.1 percent were single family attached, 6.2 percent were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 18.4 percent were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of single-family units increased more than multi-family units. Generally, in St. Helena, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in the region. • Vacancy Rate. Vacant units make up 17.4 percent of the overall housing stock in St. Helena. The rental vacancy rate stands at 3.1 percent, while the ownership vacancy rate is 5.3 percent. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. This statistic highlights how St. Helena contains many “second homes,” which may sit unoccupied for a majority of the year. Additionally, with the increasing popularity of short-term rental sites, such as 12 ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, Housing Needs Data Report: St. Helena, May 2021.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-83
AirBNB, at vacation destinations such as Napa Valley, many homes may be vacant in the sense of not having permanent residents.
• Overcrowding. Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 2.5 percent of very low-income households (below 50 percent AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while none of the households above 100 percent of the AMI experience this level of overcrowding. • Cost Burden. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30 percent of its income on housing costs.

A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In St. Helena, 21.1 percent of households spend 30-50 percent of their income on housing, while 16.6 percent of households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing. Lower-income, Latinx, and large households are disproportionally impacted by housing cost burdens.

Existing Housing Conditions
Housing Stock Characteristics
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.

The housing stock of St. Helena in 2020 was made up of 63.9 percent single family detached homes,

6.1 percent single family attached homes, 6.2 percent multifamily homes with two to four units, 18.4 percent multifamily homes with five or more units, and 5.4 percent mobile homes (Figure 20). In St. Helena, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was the detached single-family home.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-84
Figure 20 Housing Type Trends
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-01.

Age of Housing Stock
Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. According to American Community Survey estimates, in St. Helena, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1960 to 1979, with 1,217 units constructed during this period (Figure 21). Since 2010,

1.9 percent of the current housing stock was built, which is 63 units.

According to City records, however, these American Community Survey estimates are low. As reported in Table 1 above, the City permitted 110 units between 2015 and 2021, of which all units have been constructed. 152 1,777 169 525 178 153 1,850 181 533 155 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Single-Family Home:

Attached
Single-Family Home:

Detached
Multifamily Housing:

Two to Four Units
Multifamily Housing:

Five-plus Units
Mobile Homes
Units
2010 2020
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-85
Figure 21 Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-04.

Occupancy Rates
Vacant units make up 17.4 percent of the overall housing stock in St. Helena (Figure 22). The rental vacancy rate stands at 3.1 percent, while the ownership vacancy rate is 5.3 percent. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Figure 23 shows the distribution of vacancies by type.13
13 The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (17.4%). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) - but exclude a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant.
336
648
1,217
757
251
63 0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Built 1939 Or
Earlier
Built 1940 To
1959
Built 1960 To
1979
Built 1980 To
1999
Built 2000 To
2009
Built 2010 Or
Later
Units
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-86
Figure 22 Occupancy Status
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25002Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6 percent of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census.

Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for short- term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.14 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category.
14 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.
83% 88%
94%
17% 12%
6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
St. Helena Napa County Bay Area
Percent of Housing Units
Occupied Housing Units Vacant Housing Units
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-87
Figure 23 Vacant Units by Type
Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-03.

Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6 percent of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for short- term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration. In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category
Between 2015 and 2019, 74 housing units were issued permits in St. Helena. 73. percent of permits issued in St. Helena were for above moderate-income housing, 5.4 percent were for moderate-income housing, and 21.6 percent were for low- or very low-income housing (Table 14). 6%
11%
9% 24% 4%
6%
45%
55%
22%
34%
26%
36%
6%
6% 3% 7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
St. Helena Napa County Bay Area
Percent of Vacant Housing Units
Sold, Not Occupied
Rented, Not Occupied
Other Vacant
For Seasonal, Recreational, Or
Occasional Use
For Sale
For Rent
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-88
Table 14 Housing Permitting from 2015-2019 St. Helena
Income Group Value
Above Moderate-Income Permits 54
Low Income Permits 9
Very Low-Income Permits 7
Moderate Income Permits 4
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)
Overcrowding
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to accommodate. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens).

Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In St. Helena, 2.2 percent of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 1.0 percent of households that own (Figure 24).

In St. Helena, 7.1 percent of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.6 percent for those own.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-89
Figure 24 Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-01.

Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 2.5 percent of very low-income households (below 50 percent AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 0.0 percent of households above 100 percent experience this level of overcrowding (Figure 25). 1%
7%
1%
2%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Percent of Households

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room More than 1.5 Occupants per Room Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-90
Figure 25 Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-04.

People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In St. Helena, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is other race or multiple races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) (Figure 26).
12%
5%
1%
2%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Percent of Households

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room More than 1.5 Occupants per Room Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-91
Figure 26 Overcrowding by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and nonHispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-03.

Housing Cost Burden
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness. 17%
25%
3%
2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
More than 1.0 Occupants per Room
Percent of Households
American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic or Latinx
Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
White, Non-Hispanic
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-92
Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters aremore likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in St. Helena (Figure 27), 31.3 percent of renters spend 30 percent to 50 percent of their income on housing compared to 13.3 percent of those that own. Additionally, 13.5 percent of renters spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing,while 21.9 percent of owners are severely cost-burdened.

Figure 27 Cost Burden by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30 percent of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50 percent of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-06.

In St. Helena, 16.6 percent of households spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 21.1 percent spend 30 to 50 percent. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (Figure 28). For example, 56.9 percent of St. Helena households making less than 30 percent of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For St. Helena residents making more than 100 percent of AMI, just 3.4 percent are severely 64%
51%
13%
31%
22% 13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Not Computed
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-93
cost-burdened,and 81.9 percent of those making more than 100 percent of AMI spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing.

Figure 28 Cost Burden by Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30 percent of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50 percent of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-05.

Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most cost burdened with 38.1 percent spending 30 percent to 50 percent of their income on housing, and Asian / API, Non-Hispanic residents are the most severely cost burdened with 100.0 percent spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing (Figure 29). 26% 22%
48%
68%
82%
17%
60%
24%
11%
15%
57%
19%
28%
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-94
Figure 29 Cost Burden by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30 percent of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50 percent of monthly
income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-08.

Physical Housing Conditions
In general, the condition of the housing stock in St. Helena is good. This is primarily due to the high value of residential property, recent new construction, and minor to extensive remodeling which has been performed within the last ten years. Property owners are motivated to keep housing in good condition because of the high value of houses and rents.
100%
65%
26%
50%
17%
8%
38%
100%
16%
66%
12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
American Indian
or Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API, NonHispanicBlack or African
American, NonHispanic
White, NonHispanicOther Race or
Multiple Races,
Non-Hispanic
Hispanic or
Latinx
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Cost Burden Not computed Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-95
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, American Community Survey data (Figure 30) gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in St. Helena. For example, 7.5 percent of renters in St. Helena reported lacking a kitchen and no renters lack plumbing. No owners reported lacking either a kitchen or plumbing.

Figure 30 Substandard Housing Issues, St. Helena, 2019
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Per HCD guidance, this data should be supplemented by local estimates of units needing to be rehabilitated or replaced based on recent windshield surveys, local building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-06.

There are scattered areas where housing condition can be an issue. City staff estimates approximately two percent of the single-family houses and one percent of multi-family units need replacement. These units have improvement costs that exceed the estimated replacement cost. Approximately four percent of single-family houses and two percent of multifamily units are in need of significant rehabilitation, which is defined as having major deficiencies that may require immediate repair. About five percent of the housing stock needs limited rehabilitation. These structures exhibit minor repair need and are not considered to have major safety issues. 7%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%
No Kitchen Plumbing
Percent of Units Lacking Amenity
Owner Renter
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-96

6. Housing Market Conditions
This section provides information on the private housing market in St. Helena and assesses the market’s ability to accommodate the housing needs of residents. ABAG supplied an HCD Preapproved Data Package that provided data on home values, affordability, and contract rents in the City. Additionally, ABAG, in coordination with Baird + Driskell Community Planning provided a Housing Needs Data Report that directly informed this section of the Needs Analysis.15
Key Findings
• Home Values. Home values in St. Helena are high. The typical home value (December 2020) was $1,665,790 in St. Helena, $768,410 in Napa County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area. • Affordability. The current market conditions in St. Helena enable only above moderate-income households to purchase homes, though affordable rental and for-sale housing complexes in St. Helena provide 254 units of affordable housing.

For-Sale Housing
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, and land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in St. Helena was $1,665,790 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were between $1 million and $1.5 million (Figure 31). By comparison, the typical home value is $768,410 in Napa County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $500,000 to $750, 000.

The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession.

The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 156.7 percent in St. Helena from $648,900 to $1,665,790. This change is above the change in Napa County, and above the change for the region (Figure 32).
15 ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, Housing Needs Data Report: St. Helena, May 2021.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-97
Figure 31 Home Values of Owner-occupied Units
Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-07.

Figure 32 Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for lower to moderate valued homes in a 6%10% 6%10% 20% 16% 14% 35% 23% 12%15%20%26% 8% 18% 8%3%8% 24% 7% 9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%
St. Helena Napa County Bay Area
Percent of Owner Occupied Units
Units Valued Less than $250k Units Valued $250k-$500k Units Valued $500k-$750k Units Valued $750k-$1M Units Valued $1M-$1.5M Units Valued $1M-$2M Units Valued $2M+
$100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
$1,500,000
$1,700,000
$1,900,000
Home Value
Bay Area Napa County St. Helena
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-98
neighborhood. Specifically, the ZHVI is based upon the valuations of homes between 35th to 65th percentile range on a standardized curve encompassing all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums.

More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series For unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to census-designated population counts.

Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-08.

Affordable Home Purchase Prices
0 examines affordability in another way. Instead of presenting the income required to buy a market rate house in St. Helena, 0 examines how much very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in St. Helena could afford to pay for housing, along with the corresponding maximum affordable home price. The table assumes 10 percent down payment, modeling a situation that is more typical of first-time homebuyers who have not amassed sufficient financial resources to make a larger down payment. These buyers are more likely to be in need of affordable housing options than the typical buyers of market rate housing in St. Helena. The lower down payment amount requires the owner to buy mortgage insurance.

As shown, in the case of a three-person household, the affordable home price varies from approximately $203,461 for very low-income, to $325,372 for low-income, and $406,922 for moderate income households.

The income limits increase with household size, and a six-person household with very low, low, or moderate income can afford to buy a home priced at $262,243, $419,548, and $542,493, respectively. Based on this data and current market prices, lower-income households have very few options for purchasing a home in St. Helena, while moderate-income households may be able to afford to purchase a condominium or a small single-family home.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-99
Table 15 Affordable Home Purchase Prices by Income Level, Napa County Extremely Low-Income Households at 30 percent of Median Family Income Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
5 Bedroom
Number of Persons 1 1.5 3 4 6 7.5
Income Level $22,950 $24,550 $29,500 $32,750 $38,000 $39,300 Max. Monthly Gross Rent (1) $574 $614 $738 $819 $950 $983 Max. Purchase Price (2) $95,004 $101,627 $122,118 $135,572 $157,304 $162,686 Very Low-Income Households at 50 percent of Median Family Income Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
5 Bedroom
Number of Persons 1 1.5 3 4 6 7.5
Income Level $38,200 $40,950 $49,150 $54,600 $63,350 $65,500 Max. Monthly Gross Rent (1) $955 $1,024 $1,229 $1,365 $1,584 $1,638 Max. Purchase Price (2) $158,132 $169,516 $203,461 $226,022 $262,243 $271,143 Low-Income Households at 80 percent of Median Family Income Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
5 Bedroom
Number of Persons 1 1.5 3 4 6 7.5
Income Level $61,150 $65,500 $78,600 $87,350 $101,350 $104,850 Max. Monthly Gross Rent (1) $1,529 $1,638 $1,965 $2,184 $2,534 $2,621 Max. Purchase Price (2) $253,136 $271,143 $325,372 $361,593 $419,548 $434,036 Median-Income Households at 100 percent of Median Family Income Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
5 Bedroom
Number of Persons 1 1.5 3 4 6 7.5
Income Level $76,450 $81,900 $98,300 $109,200 $126,650 $131,050 Max. Monthly Gross Rent (1) $1,911 $2,048 $2,458 $2,730 $3,166 $3,276 Max. Purchase Price (2) $316,472 $339,033 $406,922 $452,043 $524,279 $542,493 Moderate-Income Households at 120 percent of Median Family Income Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
5 Bedroom
Number of Persons 1 1.5 3 4 6 7.5
Income Level $91,750 $98,300 $117,950 $131,050 $152,000 $157,250 Max. Monthly Gross
Rent/Payments (1) $2,294 $2,458 $2,949 $3,276 $3,800 $3,931 Max. Purchase Price (2) $379,808 $406,922 $488,265 $542,493 $629,218 $650,951 Note: Based on Napa County Area Family Income (Family of 4) of $109,200, per State income limits, effective April 26, 2021. 1Assumes that 30 percent (35 percent for moderate) of income is available for either: monthly rent, including utilities; or mortgage payment, taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners' insurance. 2Assumes 90.0 percent loan at 5.0 percent annual interest rate and 30-year term; assumes taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners’ insurance account for 20 percent of total monthly payments.

Source: Mintier Harnish, 2022.

Rental Housing
Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years. Regionwide, some renters were priced out, evicted, or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

In St. Helena, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the $500 to $1000 per month category, totaling

24.4 percent, followed by 22.2 percent of units renting in the $1500 to $2000 per month category (Figure 33).

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-100
Both countywide, and in the Bay Area as a whole, the largest share of units is in the $1500 to $2000 per month category.

Figure 33 Contract Monthly Rents for Renter-occupied Units Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-09.

Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 15.7 percent in St. Helena, from $1,390 to $1,470 per month (Figure 34). In Napa County, the median rent has increased 23.0 percent , from $1,270 to $1,560 per month.

The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850 per month, a 54 percent increase.8%
6%
6%
24%
13%
10%
19%
26%
19%
22%
29%
23%
14%
15%
17%
7%
6%
12%
6%
5%
13%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%
St. Helena Napa County Bay Area
Percent of Rental Units
Rent less than $500 Rent $500-$1000 Rent $1000-$1500 Rent $1500-$2000 Rent $2000-$2500 Rent $2500-$3000 Rent $3000 or more
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-101
Figure 34 Median Contract Monthly Rent
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-10.

Affordable Rental Rates
In addition to maximum home purchase price, Table 15 also calculates maximum monthly gross rent. This calculation assumes that 30 percent (35 percent for moderate) of income is available for either: monthly rent, including utilities; or mortgage payment, taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners' insurance. Among three-person households, the maximum monthly gross rent that can be paid is calculated at $1,229 for very low-income households, $1,965 or low-income households, and $2,458 for moderate income households. While a studio, one-bedroom, and some of the two-bedroom market rate apartments in St. Helena are affordable to low income and a portion of very low-income households, they are in limited supply. Average apartment rents throughout Napa County are only affordable to low-, moderate-, and above moderate- households. In addition, single family rental units are significantly more expensive and are affordable only to above moderate-income households.
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
$1,300
$1,400
$1,500
$1,600
$1,700
$1,800
$1,900
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Dollars
St. Helena Napa County Bay Area
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-102
Affordable Housing Complexes
Table 16 lists affordable housing complexes and units in St. Helena, which are shown on Figure 35. These include four rental complexes, five for-sale subdivisions, and 13 regulated affordable units in the City, that increase the supply of housing and focus on meeting the housing needs unmet by the private housing market • The rental complexes noted in Table 16 provide 210 units of affordable housing to St. Helena residents.

Waiting lists for affordable units can be quite long. For instance, as of January 2022, Hunt’s Grove Apartments has a five-year waiting list16 and Stonebridge has a three to four year waiting list.17 Recently, the City has reduced and deferred fees for a five-unit affordable project at 963 Pope Street, which is currently under construction.
• The five for-sale subdivisions (Marietta Townhomes, Wallis Subdivision, Magnolia Oaks, and Brenkle Court) provide 41 affordable for-sale units with deed restrictions. The City of St. Helena contributed funds to the Marietta townhomes in 1997, including $130,000 in silent second mortgages and $12,500 in building fees. The City also reduced fees and contributed significant funds to the Brenkle Court development in 2016 and approved an additional five deed-restricted affordable units at this location in 2020.
• The 13 regulated affordable apartments in the City are incorporated into the Wydown Hotel, Hunt Street Apartments, Turley Flats, and Grayson Avenue Apartments. The City has both reduced and deferred fees (through a loan from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund) for the Turley Flats Affordable Housing Project, an 8-unit multi-family development.

In addition, mobile home parks like Vineyard Valley, although not officially regulated as affordable housing, do represent a housing option in St. Helena that is affordable to moderate income households. 16 Personal communication, January 26, 2022.
17 Personal communication. January 26, 2022.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-103
Figure 35 Map of Affordable Housing Units, St. Helena
Source: City of St. Helena, 2022. Map data from OpenStreetMap.org Contributors.

Table 16 Affordable Rental Housing Units, St. Helena
Name
Affordable
Units
Bedrooms/
Bathrooms
Special
Needs
Current
Owner Funding Sources Status
Affordability
Requirement
Hunts Grove 56 14 - 1 bdr/1 bath
28 - 2 bdr/1 bath
14 - 3 bdr/2 bath
n.a. Bridge
Housing
9 percent Tax Credit Equity;
Residential Housing Construction
Program; Bank of American, First
Nationwide Bank, City of
St. Helena, First Financial
Management
Active Low and Very Low
Income
Stonebridge
Apts.
78 8 - 1 bdr/1 bath
23 - 2 bdr/1 bath
28 - 3 bdr/2 bath
8 - 4 bdr/2 bath
n.a. EAH
Nonprofit
Housing
Corporation
9 percent Tax Credit Equity; HCD;
Residential Housing Construction
Program; City of St. Helena;
Federal Home Loan Bank,
Affordable Housing Program.

Active Low and Very Low
Income
Woodbridge
Apts.
49 48 - 1 bdr/1 bath
2 - 2 bdr/1 bath
Senior
Citizens
Woodbridge
RAL
CHFA, Section 8 Active Very Low Income
Magnolia Oaks 14 10 - 2 bdr
apartments
4- 1 bdr second
units
n.a. n.a. Developer Financed Active Low and Moderate
Income
Wydown Hotel 1 1 - 1 bdr n.a. Wydown
Hotel
Developer Financed Active Very Low Income
Hunt Street
Apartments
2 Studio n.a. Jack
Ibrahim
Owner Financed Active Very Low Income
Turley Flats 8 2-3 bdr multifamily n.a. n.a. Private Financing, City and County Loans
Grayson
Apartments
2 2 bdr/1 bath n.a. n.a. Tax Credit Project, AHP, RHCP, City & private funds
Active Low and Moderate
Income
RENTAL TOTAL 210
Source: City of St. Helena, 2022.
🏠 Rental Housing
🔑 For-Sale Housing
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-104
Table 17 Affordable For-Sale Housing Units, St. Helena
Name
Affordable
Units
Bedrooms/
Bathrooms
Special
Needs
Current
Owner Funding Sources Status
Affordability
Requirement
Wallis
Subdivision
20 2bdr/2 bath n.a. n.a. Developer Financed Active Moderate Income
Marietta
Townhomes
10 Unknown n.a. n.a. Napa Valley Community;
City of St. Helena
Active Moderate
Income
Sherwin 1 4 bdr single family n.a. n.a. Developer Financed Active Moderate Income
Magnolia Oaks 2 3 bdr single family n.a. n.a. Developer Financed Active Moderate Income
Brenkle Court 8 3bdr/1.5 bath n.a. n.a. City and County Loans, USDA & sweat equity
Under
Constru
ction
Low and
Moderate
Income
FOR SALE TOTAL 41
Source: City of St. Helena, 2022.
“At Risk” Units
State law requires an analysis of the risk of conversion of affordable housing to market-rate housing within the next ten years. The 2009 Housing Element identified one affordable housing complex, the Woodbridge Apartments, as at-risk for losing its federal subsidies. In 2013, the City worked with the property owners and CalHFA to re-finance and renovate 50 units of affordable housing. Through this effort the Woodbridge Apartment Complex will continue to offer regulated affordable housing through November 2067. The 2014- 2022 Housing Element reported no units at-risk of conversion.

The California Housing Partnership provides information on affordable housing developments subsidized through HUD, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, and public housing. Table 18, shows data on assisted affordable units with information on the estimated affordability end year and an estimation of at-risk status. As shown on the table, the California Housing Partnership's Preservation Database (2020) does not identify any affordable housing developments with subsidies expiring during the 2023-2031 planning period.

Table 18 Assisted Affordable Housing Developments by Conversion Risk Status, St. Helena Universal ID Name Address Zip
Affordable
Units
Total
Units
Funding
Program
Estimated
Affordability
End Year
Risk
Level
CA00001362 Woodbridge Village
Apartments
727 Hunt
Avenue 94574 49 50
LIHTC;
HUD;
CalHFA
2067 Low
CA00002539 Hunt's Grove Apartments 548 Hunt
Avenue 94574 56 56 LIHTC; HCD 2047 Low
CA00002582 Stonebridge Apartments
990
College
Ave
94574 78 80 LIHTC;
HCD 2068 Low
Source: California Housing Partnership Preservation Database, 2021.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-105

7. Special Housing Needs
California Government Code Section 65583 (a) (7) requires an analysis of any special housing needs, “such as those of the elderly, persons with disabilities, large families, farm workers, families with female heads of household, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.”18 This section provides estimates of the prevalence of each of these special needs populations, discusses special housing concerns, and analyzes their housing cost burdens within St. Helena to the extent that available data allows. Data sources include the HCD Preapproved Data Package and Housing Needs Data Report prepared for St. Helena by ABAG, as well as the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey.

Key Findings
• People with Disabilities. In St. Helena, people with disabilities make up around 12 percent of the total population. Children (under 18) make up around 38 percent of the developmentally disabled population, while adults make up around 62 percent. Most of the developmentally disabled population reside with their parent, family, or guardian.
• Senior Households. Senior households represent a higher percentage of the total households in St. Helena, at about 39 percent of households in the City. There is a large income disparity between seniors who rent housing and seniors who own their home. Most seniors who rent make 0 to 30 percent of AMI, and sixty-eight percent of senior households in this income category have housing cost burdens. By contrast, most seniors who own make greater than 100 percent of AMI; thirteen percent of senior households in this category experience housing cost burdens. • Large Households. In St. Helena, most large households are renters. Among units with three or more bedrooms in St. Helena, approximately 77 percent renter occupied. In St. Helena, 43.2 percent of large family households experience a cost burden of 30 to 50 percent, and an additional 6.8 percent of households spend more than half of their income on housing. • Female-headed households. Female-headed households in St. Helena make up 10 percent of the total population, while married-couple family households make up around 42 percent. In St. Helena, around 23 percent of female-headed households with children fall below the federal poverty line, while around 18 percent of female-headed households without children fall below the federal poverty line. • Farmworkers. The number of permanent farm workers in Napa County has increase from 2,916 in 2002 to 4,290 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers decreased from 7,855 to 5,734. The migrant worker student population totaled 22 during the 2019-20 school year and has increased by

11.1 percent since the 2016-17 school year.
18 California Government Code Section 65583 (a) (7) at
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65583. Accessed March 20, 2022.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-106
• Persons experiencing homelessness. According to a Point in Time Count provided by the Chief of Police, there is one homeless person who resides in St. Helena. Countywide, many of the persons experiencing homelessness report chronic substance abuse or mental illness.

People with Disabilities
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and need specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.

When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence. Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs availability, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 36 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of St. Helena. Overall, 11.9 percent of people in St. Helena have a disability of any kind.

Figure 36 Disability by Type
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types:

Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.

Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table DISAB-01.

7.16%

4.47% 4.28% 3.56%

1.97%

0.98%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With a cognitive
difficulty
With a hearing
difficulty
With an
independent
living difficulty
With a self-care
difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-107
People Living with Developmental Disabilities
Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them. Table 19 contains data on people with developmental disabilities in St. Helena. In St. Helena, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up 38.1 percent, while adults account for 61.9 percent.

Table 19 People with Developmental Disabilities by Age, St. Helena Age Group Total
Age 18+ 12
Age Under 18 20
Total 32
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (January 2022) There are several housing types appropriate for people living with a development disability: rent subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, inclusionary housing, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and SB 962 homes. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this need group. Incorporating ‘barrier-free’ design in all, new multifamily housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income. The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in St. Helena is the home of a parent, family member, or guardian (Table 20).

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-108
Table 20 People with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type Total
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 31
Foster /Family Home 0
Independent /Supported Living <11
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Community Care Facility 0
Other 0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (January 2022)
Seniors
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions and/or reduced mobility.

Senior Households
Table 21 shows data for households by age of householder for occupied housing units. As shown, in St. Helena, approximately 39 percent of households are 65 and older.

Table 21 Households by Age
Age Number Total by Grouping Percent
Age 15-24 37
1,646 61%
Age 25-34 247
Age 35-44 272
Age 45-54 510
Age 55-59 352
Age 60-64 228
Age 65-74 525
1,056 39%
Age 75-84 377
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-109
Age 85+ 154
Total 2,702 2,702 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007 Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make 0%-30 percent of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls in the income group Greater than 100 percent of AMI (Figure 37).

Figure 37 Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-01.

Elderly Housing Cost Burden
When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their 65%
85%
68%
76%
90%
35%
15%
32%
24%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-110
special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. 60.9 percent of seniors making less than 30 percent of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100 percent of AMI, 87.0 percent are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing (Figure 38).

Figure 38 Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-03.

Senior Living Facilities
Within St. Helena, there are 159 senior housing units, as shown on Table 22. With approximately 1,056 seniors households in the city, the city has a need for both market rate and affordable senior living facilities. The largest senior living facility, locally owned Silverado Orchards, has a residential capacity of 103. This facility is not income restricted. The only income restricted senior living facility, Woodbridge Village, has 50 units, with most 32% 32%
69% 73%
87%
8%
35%
8%
8%
61%
32%
24% 27%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-111
being one-bedroom units. As a stark representation of the high demand and low supply of affordable senior living units, according to a manager at Woodbridge Village, there is a waiting list stretching several years to live in their affordable senior housing complex.

Table 22 Senior Housing Units, St. Helena.

Facility Name Address Tenure Number of Units Income
Restriction
Silverado Orchards 601 Pope Street Rent 103 No
Saint Helena Home Care 2011 Olive Avenue Rent 6 No
Woodbridge Village 727 Hunt Avenue Rent 50 Yes
Source: City of St. Helena, 2022; U.S. News, 2016.

Additional Senior Housing Needs
Given the high proportion of St. Helena households that are senior, especially seniors aged 75 and older, it is important to work to address their housing needs. The Rianda house provides seniors with a meeting place and valuable information on topics ranging from housing and income-assistance to medical referrals, as a welcome and positive resource for seniors in St. Helena. There are still many needs of seniors that are not being met, however, and changes to St. Helena’s housing policies could make it easier for seniors to age in place. Often, when seniors are released from a hospital stay and return to their own homes, they have trouble navigating inside the home and getting to neighborhood services like the grocery store and doctor’s office.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element includes three programs directly related the senior housing. • Program HE-AA commits the City to pursuing funding for costs specifically associated with housing rehabilitation for lower income households and seniors. Such funding can help with the conservation of 20 units accessible to seniors, along with other units for persons with a disability. • Program HE-KK commits the city to encouraging new developments accessible to persons with special needs, which includes seniors. This program specifies 10 senior-accessible units being constructed in the next Planning Period.
• Program HE-LL commits the City to pursuing federal and State funding for costs associated with both new construction and rehabilitation for lower-income households and seniors. Such funding can support the development of 20 units accessible to seniors.

Additional policies and programs that the City should consider include zoning that encourages families to consider ADUs and JADUs to accommodate their aging relatives or caregivers. Such policies could also provide for more elder-friendly neighborhoods, improved lighting to increase visibility, and safe accessible sidewalks and walking paths.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-112
Large Households
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions.

In St. Helena, for large households with five or more persons, most units (84.5 percent) are renter occupied (Figure 39). In 2017, 47.3 percent of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50 percent of the area median income (AMI).

Figure 39 Household Size by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-01.

The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community. Large families are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms, of which there are 1,422 units in St. Helena. Among these large units with three or more bedrooms, 23.1 percent are owner-occupied and 76.9 percent are renter occupied (Figure 40). 644 536
235
155
20 395
311
192
105
109
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 Person Household 2 Person Household 3 Person Household 4 Person Household 5 Or More Person Household
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-113
Figure 40 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-05.

Large Family Housing Cost Burden
Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

In St. Helena, 43.2 percent of large family households experience a cost burden of 30 to 50 percent, while 6.8 percent of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 19.7 percent of all other households have a cost burden of 30 to 50 percent, with 17.2 percent of households spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing (Figure 41). 1630
450
1,015
79 100
240
444
318
10 0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
0 Bedrooms 1 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 3-4 Bedrooms 5 Or More Bedrooms Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-114
Figure 41 Cost Burden by Household Size
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30 percent of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50 percent of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-09.

Female-Headed Households
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female- headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In St. Helena, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 42.3 percent of total, while Female-Headed Households make up 10.0 percent of all households (Figure 42). 63%
50%
20% 43%
17%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All other household types Large Family 5+ persons
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-115
Figure 42 Household Type
Universe: Households
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23.

Female-headed households with children may face unique housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging. In St. Helena, 40 female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 18 female-headed households without children live in poverty (Figure 43). 10% 10% 10%
3% 5% 5%
42%
53% 51%
6%
6% 9%
38%
26% 25%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
St. Helena Napa County Bay Area
Percent of Households
Female-Headed Family Households Male-headed Family Households Married-couple Family Households Other Non-Family Households Single-person Households
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-116
Figure 43 Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status
Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-05.

Farmworkers
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.

Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market.

Table 23 estimates the migrant worker student population between 2016 and 2020. In St. Helena, the migrant worker student population totaled 22 during the 2019-20 school year and has increased by 11.1 percent since the 2016-17 school year. The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4 percent in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. The change at the county level is a 19.4 percent increase in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. 133
80 40
18 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
with Children with No Children
Households
Above Poverty Level Below Poverty Level
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-117
Table 23 Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year St. Helena Napa County Bay Area
2016-17 18 903 4,630
2017-18 12 1173 4,607
2018-19 22 1,090 4,075
2019-20 20 1,078 3,976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table FARM-01.

Table 24 presents an estimate of the total farmworkers in Napa County. Since 2007, the county has seen an increase in farmworker jobs. As of 2017, the county is reported to have more than 10,000 hired farm workers, of which 43 percent worked more than 150 days. The number of permanent farm workers in Napa County has increased since 2002, totaling 4,290 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 5,734 in 2017 (Figure 44). Notably, hired farm workers in Napa County represent a large proportion of the Bay Area's permanent (24.8 percent) and seasonal (31.4 percent) farm workers (Table 24).

Table 24 Farm Labor, Napa County
2002 2007 2012 2017
County
Distribution
Percent of
Total
Bay Area
Farmworkers
Permanent 2,916 2,631 3,732 4,290 43% 24.80%
Seasonal 7,855 5,202 6,125 5,734 57% 31.40%
Totals 10,771 7,833 9,857 10,024 100% 28.20%
Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-118
Figure 44 Farm Labor by County, Napa County
Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are permanent workers for that farm.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM-02.

Five different kinds of housing exist for farmworkers in Napa County: farmworker centers, owned and operated by the Napa County Housing Authority (NCHA); private accommodations designated for agriculture employees that accommodate five or more employees and are monitored by the Napa County Department of Environmental Management; private accommodations designated as farm labor dwellings accommodating fewer than five residents, private apartments or other housing rented or owned by farmworkers; and affordable housing projects subsidized by the County and by incorporated cities, some of which have units set aside specifically for farmworker households.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term. 2,916
7,855
2,631
5,202
3,732
6,125
4,290
5,734
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Permanent Seasonal
Farm Workers
2002 2007 2012 2017
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-119
Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. According to the City of St. Helena, there is one homeless person who resides in St. Helena. This data was provided by a point in time assessment by the Police Chief of the St. Helena Police Department in 2021.

Countywide, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 53.7 percent are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in transitional housing (Table 25).

Table 25 Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Napa County People in Households
Composed Solely of
Children Under 18
People in Households with
Adults and Children
People in Households
without Children Under 18
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 0 13 119
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 0 34 6
Unsheltered 0 5 145
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-01.

People of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In Napa County, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for 77.0 percent of the homeless population, while making up 73.4 percent of the overall population (Figure 45).

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-120
Figure 45 Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Napa County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table.

Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-02.

In Napa County, Latinx residents represent 38.5 percent of the population experiencing homelessness, while Hispanic or Latinx residents comprise 33.9 percent of the general population (Figure 46). 9.63% 5.28% 3.42% 77.02%

4.66%

0.86%

8.35%

2.06%

73.39%

15.34%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
American Indian or
Alaska Native
(Hispanic and NonHispanic)
Asian / API
(Hispanic and NonHispanic)
Black or African
American (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Other Race or
Multiple Races
(Hispanic and NonHispanic)
Percent of Population
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-121
Figure 46 Hispanic or Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Napa County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-03.

Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In Napa County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 177 reporting this condition (Table 26). Of those, some 44.1 percent are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.

38.51%

61.49%

33.93%

66.07%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%
Hispanic/Latinx Non-Hispanic/Latinx
Percent of Population
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-122
Table 26 Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Napa County Chronic
Substance Abuse HIV/AIDS
Severely
Mentally Ill Veterans
Victims of
Domestic
Violence
Sheltered -
Emergency Shelter 70 0 91 8 11
Sheltered -
Transitional Housing 0 0 8 0 4
Unsheltered 91 1 78 6 17
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
In St. Helena, there were no reported students experiencing homeless in the 2019-20 school year (Table 27).

Napa County has seen a 29.1 percent decrease in the population of students experiencing homelessness, and the Bay Areas as a whole experienced an 8.5 percent decrease. However, during the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.

Table 27 Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Geography 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
St. Helena 0 0 0 0
Napa County 381 433 249 270
Bay Area 14,990 15,142 15,427 13,718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) Given the documented need for emergency shelters in Napa County, St. Helena is subject to Government Code Section 65583(a) (4). This code section, which became effective as of January 1, 2008, requires jurisdictions to designate zoning districts adequate for facilities to accommodate the identified need for emergency shelters, wherein emergency shelters must be allowed without a conditional use or other discretionary permit.19 20 The City is in compliance, as emergency shelters are currently a permitted use by-right in the Service Commercial and Industrial zones.
19 Building Block for Effective Housing Elements, “Adequate Sites Inventory and Analysis: Zoning for Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing”. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/SIA_variety.php. Accessed February 14, 2014. 20 Senate Bill 2, Chapter 633. Amendment to Acts 655582, 65583 and 65589.5. Approved by Governor on October 13, 2007. Effective January 1, 2008. Accessed February 17, 2014.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-123
In addition, the City must allow transitional housing, as defined in Section 50675.2 of the Health and Safety Code, and supportive housing, as defined in Section 50675.14 of the Health and Safety Code, as residential uses. As required by state law, transitional and supportive housing must be subject only to the same permitting process as other similar residential uses in the same zone without undue special regulatory requirements. For example, a proposed multifamily supportive housing project would be subject to the same permitting process as any other similar multifamily development in the same zoning district. As required, the City allows transitional and supportive housing in all residential districts.

Non-English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights, or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns.

Figure 47 shows population data by English proficiency. In St. Helena, nine percent of residents five years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is slightly higher than the proportion for Napa County. Throughout the region the proportion of residents five years and older with limited English proficiency is nine percent.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-124
Figure 47 Population with Limited English Proficiency
Universe: Population five years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03. 9% 8% 8%
91% 92% 92%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
St. Helena Napa County Bay Area
Percent of Population aged 5 and over
Population 5 Years and Over Who Speak English "Well" or "Very well" Population 5 Years and Over Who Speak English "Not well" or "Not at all" Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-125

8. Non-governmental and Governmental Constraints
Constraints on the development of housing are divided into non-governmental constraints and governmental constraints. Non-governmental constraints include the price of land, cost of construction, flooding, conservation easements and long-term vineyard leases, and a lack of rental accessory dwelling units. Potential governmental constraints include land use controls, codes and code enforcement, on and off-site improvements, fees and exactions, processing and permit procedures, and regulations affecting housing for persons with disabilities.

Key Findings
• The possible non-governmental constraints discussed include the price of land, cost of construction, flooding, conservation easements and long-term vineyard leases, and a lack of rental accessory dwelling units. Land costs represent a significant component of the cost of housing development in St.

Helena because the high price of vacant land. The cost of construction in St. Helena higher than the state average and further constrains development. Overall housing production costs for both singlefamily and multiple-family rental development indicate that a subsidy would probably be necessary for some moderate-income households, and all lower income households to own or rent new units in St.

Helena.
• The governmental controls analyzed in this section were land use controls, codes and enforcements, on-and off-site improvements, fees and exactions, processing and permit procedures, and regulations affecting housing for persons with disabilities. The land use controls including zoning and current General Plan land use designations do not constrain residential development; however, some changes are necessary to streamline the design review process.
• The Growth Management System (GMS) does not appear to place an undue burden on market rate development, since there has never been a year when the demand for residential building permits has exceed the number of available permits. Furthermore, housing projects affordable to households at up to 120 percent of AMI are exempt from the GMS. Due to recent state laws, the GMS is not currently enforceable.
• The on- and off-site improvement standards related to water, sewer, parking, and other miscellaneous regulations impact housing development in a variety of different ways. Sewer capacity is sufficient to support additional development. Water capacity during a normal year is sufficient and is expected to remain sufficient through 2023, but there will always be water shortages in dry years. The City has demonstrated its commitment to providing water and sewer service to affordable housing developments, and has included a program committing the City to continue to do so throughout the planning period.
• Neither the building codes nor the building fees represent a governmental constraint to development.

St. Helena adopted the 2019 California Building Codes Standards, and although they have made some Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-126
changes to the Code such as seismic control measures, these changes were necessary for safety and do not unduly affect housing production. The fee structure for both single-family and multiple-family development reflects the costs of the development to the City, and therefore does not present an unnecessary constraint on residential development.
• The City works diligently to process applications quickly and without unnecessary delay. Permitting and processing procedures and timelines for residential development, both single and multifamily, are not a constraint to development.

Non-governmental Constraints
Price of Land
According to Zillow.com, there were approximately eighteen vacant lots for sale in St. Helena in March 2022, though many are large and in undeveloped rural areas. Sales are reported between $229,000 and $17,500,000 for properties ranging in size from less than one acre to 280 acres. A public comment made during a community workshop indicated that larger vacant sites tend to be located near or beyond the urban limit.

Table 28 Price of Vacant Land, March 2022
Site Acres List Price Price per Acre
10 Acres or Less

0.35 $525,000 $1,500,000

0.74 $595,000 $804,054

1.00 $375,000 $375,000

1.00 $225,000 $225,000

1.00 $975,000 $975,000

1.08 $450,000 $416,667

1.14 $5,000,000 $4,385,965

1.58 $475,000 $300,633

2.40 $1,000,000 $416,667

5.01 $1,850,000 $369,261

10.00 $2,695,000 $269,500
Total 25.30 $14,165,000 $559,881
Site Acres List Price Price per Acre
More Than 10 Acres 15.90 $3,995,000 $251,258
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-127

23.09 $2,950,000 $127,761

32.00 $17,500,000 $546,875

92.72 $229,000 $2,470
110.63 $1,795,000 $16,225
160.69 $549,500 $3,420
280.00 $649,000 $2,318
Total 715.03 $27,667,500 $38,694
Source: Zillow.com, accessed March 28, 2022.

Construction Costs
Construction costs include both hard costs, such as labor and materials, and soft costs, including architectural and engineering services and development fees. Average residential construction costs in St. Helena begin at $300 to $700 per square foot, which is higher than statewide averages, which are currently ranging between $131 per square foot to $195 per square foot.
21 High-end, custom-built single-family homes, both locally and statewide, can cost more than $500 per square foot. Soft costs (including architectural and engineering fees, property taxes during construction, city and utility fees, and construction loan interest and fees) typically increase these costs by approximately 35 to 40 percent. Construction costs can be higher if lots require substantial site work due to steep slopes, unstable soils, waterways, and other environmental concerns.

Public comments made during Housing Element workshops indicated that construction costs are a major constraint to the production of affordable housing, and that 100 percent affordable projects are not profitable without public subsidies, grant funding, or other public investment.

Flooding
Napa Valley areas near the Napa River and along some of its tributaries are prone to flooding. Napa River flows are largely influenced by precipitation; peak flows generally occur in January and February. Some of the worst flooding in the immediate area of St. Helena has occurred in and around the Vineyard Valley Mobilehome Park, which is near the confluence of Sulphur Creek and the Napa River. Flood hazards also exist in the York Creek and Sulphur Creek Watersheds in St. Helena.

All new construction and substantial improvements in special flood hazard areas as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency are required to comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 15.52 “Flood Damage Prevention.” The development standards are intended to meet, if not exceed, minimum 21 Local estimate provided by city staff communication with Joe McGrath in March 2022. Statewide estimate sourced from:

ProMatcher Home Construction, California Home Construction Costs & Prices, provided at https://homebuilders.promatcher.com/cost/california.aspx Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-128
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) criteria for requirements for floodplain management regulations. New development in these areas is required to assure that proposed development: 1) is designed or modified and anchored to prevent flotation, collapse and lateral movement of the structure; 3) uses construction materials and utility equipment that are resistant to flood damage; and 4) uses construction methods that minimize flood damage. In addition, projects must be elevated 18 inches above the base flood elevation.

Conservation Easements and Vineyard Leases
Agricultural land in St. Helena is valued for both a productive agricultural land and as open space that helps shape the character of St. Helena. Focus Group members and community workshop participants expressed, however, that conservation easements and long-term vineyard leases are a barrier housing production in the City. Sites included in the available sites inventory were screened for these constraints.

Lack of Rental Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
While ADUs are often a less expensive housing option, Focus Group members and community workshop participants expressed that many ADUs in the City are not being rented, but are being used as additional square footage for the primary resident, a friend, a relative, or as a vacation rental. Programs HE-P, HE-Q, and HE-R in this housing element work to encourage and incentivize development of accessory dwelling units.

Governmental Constraints
Local government can directly influence housing production cost through land use controls, building codes, on and off-site improvement standards, fees and exactions, processing and permit procedures, regulations affecting housing for persons with disabilities, and with government codes and enforcement. This section discusses each of these topics and identifies the governmental controls that may adversely affect housing production.

Preservation of Agricultural Land
One of the major thrusts of the City’s land use controls is to encourage in-fill development while preserving land for agriculture. The agricultural soils of St. Helena are identified as Prime Farmland by the California State Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The wines produced from the grapes in this region achieve international recognition for their superb quality.

Roughly one-half of the 3,254 acres within the incorporated limits of the City are considered urbanized area.

This portion of the St. Helena is defined by an Urban Limit Line (ULL) which denotes the area within which urban development is allowed. Cities use ULLs to establish where they intend to encourage and discourage land development through public-infrastructure investments, land-use regulations, land acquisitions, and other actions. Within the ULL, cities typically adopt land use policies that encourage urban development (i.e., in-fill development). Outside the ULL, cities set aside lands to be used for less urban land uses, such as preserving Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-129
land for agriculture and open space. There are 1,779 acres of land outside of the ULL, but inside the incorporated limits of the City of St. Helena. Most of this land is farmed and planted to vineyards.

Land-Use Controls
The St. Helena Zoning Code and General Plan affect housing production because they determine the location, amount of land, and density of housing.

Zoning Code
Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code outlines both the residential and nonresidential zoning designations.

Table 36 provides a list of all of the residential zoning districts as well as information on the rights and requirements associated with each district. Residential uses are permitted by right in the following zones:

Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20), Winery (W), Woodland Watershed (WW), Agricultural Preserve (AP), Low Density Residential One Acre Minimum (LR-1A), Low Density Residential (LR), Medium Density Residential (MR), and High Density Residential (HR). Table 29 shows permitted residential uses by zoning district.

Table 29 Zoning Districts that Permit Residential Uses
Residential Use
Zoning District
A-20 W WW AP LR-1A LR MR HR
Agricultural Employee Housing P P P P P P P P
Dwelling, Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) P P P - P P P P
Dwelling, Duplex (new) - - - - - - UP P
Dwelling, Multiple-Family - - - - - - - P
Dwelling, Multiple-Family (key housing
sites only) - - - - - - P P
Dwelling, Single-Family P P P P P P P P
Dwelling, Triplex (new) - -
-
- - - UP P
Intermediate Care Facility (seven or
more persons) - - - - UP UP UP UP
Intermediate Care Facility (six or fewer
persons) - - - - P P P P
Mobile/Manufactured Homes - - - - P P P P
Residential Care Facility (seven or more
persons) - - - - UP UP UP UP
Residential Care Facility (six or fewer
persons) - - - - P P P P
Single Room Occupancy - - - - - - - P
Supportive Housing P P P P P P P P
Transitional Housing P P P P P P P P
P = Permitted; UP = Use Permit Required; (-) = Not Permitted Source: City of St. Helena, 2022.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-130
In terms of units per acre, the lowest allowable density is in the AP district. The AP district permits, by right, one single-family dwelling per lot, agricultural employee housing (up to 36 beds or 12 units), supportive housing, and transitional housing. The A-20 and W districts allow one single-family dwelling and one second unit by right on 20 acres of land. With a Use Permit, these districts can accommodate more than one singlefamily dwelling, as well as farm labor housing above the initially permitted density. Both the LR and LR-1A districts permit by right single-family dwellings, mobile and manufactured homes, and intermediate and residential care facilities for six or fewer persons. In addition, both districts permit as a conditional use singlefamily dwellings at less than one unit per acre and intermediate and residential care facilities for seven or more persons.

The MR district allows the same uses by right and with a conditional use permit as the LR district and also allows duplexes and triplexes with a Use Permit. Unlike the previously mentioned districts, the MR district allows multiple-family dwelling projects that are located on “key sites” by right. The HR district, in addition to allowing the same residential uses by right as the LR and MR districts, permits multiple-family dwellings, apartments, and dwelling groups containing four units or less. With a Use Permit, structures with more than four units, multiple-family dwellings, apartments, and dwelling groups are permitted. The HR district is the only district that permits single room occupancy units (SROs).

In addition to the residential districts described above, some overlay districts can affect the type and amount of housing that can be built, including the Planned Development, Rural-Residential, Specific Plan, Flood Plain, Historic Preservation, and Mobile Home Park overlay district. An overlay district expands upon the regulations already set by the underlying zoning district. For example, the Planned Development Overlay District (PD) allows for a wider variety of development, including mixed-use development not otherwise allowed in the Zoning Code. The PD zone is often applied to large pieces of land and requires approval of a rezoning and a conditional use permit application.

Table 30 shows density ranges allowed in the General Plan for each residential zoning district in dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Table 31 shows development standards by zoning district.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-131
Table 30 General Plan Density Standards by Residential Zoning District Residential
Zoning District
Corresponding General
Plan Land Use
Designation(s)
Minimum Density of Land
Use Designation
Maximum Density of Land
Use Designation
A-20 Agriculture Min. 5 acres/parcel Max. 40 acres/parcel W Woodland and Watershed Min. 5 acres/parcel No maximum WW Woodland and Watershed Min. 5 acres/parcel No maximum AP Agriculture Min. 5 acres/parcel Max. 40 acres/parcel LR-1A Low Density Residential 1.0 du/ac 5.0 du/ac
LR Low Density Residential 1.0 du/ac 5.0 du/ac
MR Medium Density Residential 5.1 du/ac 16.0 du/ac
HR Higher Density Residential 16.1 du/ac 28.0 du/ac
Source: City of St. Helena, 2022.

Table 31 Typical Residential Zones Development Standards Developme
nt Standard
Zoning District
A-20 W WW AP LR-1A LR MR HR
Parcel Standards
Minimum Size 20 acres 20 acres 5-40 acres 40 acres 1 acre 7,000
square
feet
7,000
square
feet
7,000
square
feet
Maximum
Parcel
Coverage
1 acre(1) 50 percent 10 percent, or 20,000
square feet N/A 35 percent 35 percent 45 percent 45 percent Parcel Width
(feet) N/A 300 (min.) 20-200 N/A 70 (min.) 70 (min.) 70 (min.) 70 (min.) Minimum Setbacks (feet)
Front 50(1) 100 10 percent of parcel depth 20 20-30(2) 20-30(2) 20-30(2) 20 Side 50(1) 50 20-50 feet, or 10 percent
of side yard width 20 20-30(2) 20-30(2) 20-30(2) 20
Side Yard 20 75 20-50 feet, or 10 percent
of parcel width 20 10-15(2) 10-15(2) 10-15(2) 10
Rear 20 50 10 percent of parcel depth 20 20-30(2) 20-30(2) 20-30(2) 20 Height (feet)
(max.) 30 45 35 35 30 30 30 35
Notes:
* The standards contained in this table are “typical” and are for illustrative purposes only. More specific development regulations and exceptions may apply. See Chapter 17 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code for additional development standards and requirements
(1) As measured from the centerline of abutting street. (2) Setbacks determined by overall structure height.

Source: City of St. Helena; Mintier Harnish, 2022.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-132
General Plan
St. Helena adopted the current General Plan in 2019. The General Plan has a planning horizon of 2040. The city of St. Helena consists of approximately 3,254 acres. Of that total, 19 percent are designated for residential uses, four percent for commercial uses, 2.5 percent for business/industrial uses, and 69 percent for open space and agriculture.22 Not all the land within the City Limits are available for development; rather approximately 1,475 acres within the Urban Limit Line (ULL) are eligible for development.23 Thirteen land use designations cover the land in St. Helena.

The ULL contains land use designations including Low, Medium, and High Density Residential, Central Business, Service Commercial, Industrial, Business and Professional Office, Parks and Recreation, Public/Quasi-Public, Open Space and Agriculture. Some land outside, yet contiguous to the ULL has a General Plan designation of Urban Reserve (UR) indicating that it should be considered first if land outside the ULL is needed for development. All lands with a UR land use designation are zoned A-20.

Residential Growth Management System
The Residential Growth Management System (GMS) limits the number of building permits available for residential growth each year.24 The stated purpose of the system is “to regulate the residential growth of the City to approximately two percent per year, while providing for both market rate and affordable housing units.”25 The GMS previously instituted a cap of 2,800 units by 2010, which resulted in a restriction of nine permits being issued per year. Program HE-B commits the city to removing the GMS from the Zoning Code, thus removing this governmental constraint and further encouraging the construction of housing to meet RHNA goals.

Design Review
Chapter 17.164 of the St. Helena Municipal Code outlines the City’s Design Review policies. The purpose of these policies is to go beyond the controls inherent in the land use controls and building codes and examine individual project proposals for the “general form of the land before and after development, the spatial relationships of the structures and open spaces to proximate land uses and the appearances of building and open spaces as they contribute to an area as it is being developed.”26 The Municipal Code lists 14 specific design criteria considered by the Planning Commission:

1. Consistency and compatibility with applicable elements of the general plan; 22 City of St. Helena General Plan Update 2040, Chapter Two Land Use and Growth Management. https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3505/final_plan_compiled.pdf January 27, 2022.
23 City of St. Helena General Plan Update 2040, Chapter Two Land Use and Growth Management. https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3505/final_plan_compiled.pdf January 27, 2022.
24 City of St. Helena Municipal Code. Chapter 17.152. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/sthelena/. Accessed on January 27, 2022.
25 City of St. Helena Municipal Code. Chapter 17.152. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/sthelena/. Accessed on January 27, 2022.
26 St. Helena Municipal Code. 17.165 Design Review.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-133

2. Compatibility of design with the immediate environment of the site

3. Relationship of the design to the site;

4. Determination that the design is compatible in areas considered by the board as having a unified design or historical character;

5. Whether the design promotes harmonious transition in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses;

6. Compatibility with future construction both on and off the site;

7. Whether the architectural design of structures and their materials and colors are appropriate to the function of the project;

8. Whether the planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community;

9. Whether the amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures;

10. Whether access to the property and circulation systems are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles;

11. Whether natural features and vegetation are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project;

12. Whether the materials, textures, colors and details of construction are an appropriate expression of its design concept and function and whether they are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures and functions;

13. Whether the landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors, create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; and

14. Whether sustainability and climate protection are promoted through the use of green building practices such as appropriate site/architectural design, use of green building materials, energy efficient systems and water efficient landscape materials.27
The Planning Commission examines all proposed new structures and some exterior additions (e.g. additions on historical residential properties, addition of new residential floors) in relation to the above listed design criteria and arrives at one of three recommendations: approve, approve with minor modifications, or disapprove. The City staff had noted that the complex and subjective nature of the design review process can be cumbersome for the Planning Commission, and action is currently being taken in the comprehensive zoning code update, which will address these concerns and make design review processes objective, in compliance with California State Code Section 65582.1.

SB 330
On October 9, 2019, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. The act amends existing state laws and creates new regulations around the production, preservation and planning of housing. 27 St. Helena Municipal Code. 17.165 Design Review.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-134
The bill has been in effect since January 1, 2020 and sunsets on January 1, 2025. SB 330 will affect both project planning procedures and community planning outcomes.

The goal of SB 330 is to create certainty in the development of housing projects, speeding up the review of these projects, preserving affordable housing and preventing certain zoning actions that reduce the availability of housing. SB 330 does the following (not a comprehensive list):
• Creates a new vesting process for zoning and land use ordinances, policies, and standards in place at the time a preliminary application is submitted (with limitations); • Requires that the historic status or designation of any site be determined at the time an application for a discretionary action is deemed complete;
• Prohibits imposing or enforcing non-objective design review standards established after January 1, 2020;
• Limits the number of public hearings to five for housing projects that meet all objective design standards; and
• Prohibits actions that reduce the total zoned capacity for housing (i.e., down-zoning).

A project that meets any of the following criteria per California Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2)(B) is subject to the provisions of SB 330:

15. The project consists of residential units only;

7. The project is a mixed-use development consisting of residential and non-residential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the project designated for residential use, including dwelling units and any uses accessory to the residential units; or

8. The project is transitional or supportive housing.

New Preliminary Application Form. SB 330 creates a new vesting process for discretionary housing projects during the five-year period of the bill. It achieves this through the creation of a new “preliminary application” process that establishes a new date for the purposes of locking projects into the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect when a preliminary application (including all required information) is submitted and deemed complete. This vesting does not apply to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determinations, including historic resource determinations pursuant to CEQA.

Once a complete Preliminary Housing Development Application is submitted (along with other required applications if applicable), the zoning, design, subdivision, and fee requirements in effect as of that date will remain applicable to the project for the duration of the review and entitlement process, provided that all the following provisions are satisfied:

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-135
• Complete discretionary entitlement applications must be submitted and accepted by the Planning Department within 180 days of the Preliminary Housing Development Application being deemed complete;
• If the entitlement applications are deemed incomplete after filing, the application must submit all missing or incomplete items to the Planning Department within 90 days of being notified in writing by Planning Department staff;
• The project may not increase by more than 20 percent in the number of units or total square footage indicated in the Preliminary Housing Development Application, except as the project may be revised using the State Density Bonus; and
• The project must commence construction within 30 months of site permit issuance.

Note that the following modifications may be required even when a Preliminary Housing Development Application is on file:
• Development impact fees, application fees, capacity and connection fees, or other charges may be annually adjusted based on a published cost index;
• Requirements necessary to avoid an adverse impact to public health or safety, or to avoid or lessen an impact under CEQA may be applied; and
• Applicants may submit a new or amended Preliminary Housing Development Application at any time, in which case the requirements in effect at that time shall apply.

The City has adopted an SB 330 process and checklist to streamline the design and approval of by-right multifamily units within the community, in compliance with SB 330.

Housing Trust Fund, Housing Impact Fee, and Inclusionary/In-Lieu Fee Requirements In September 2004, the City Council passed Ordinance 2004-7 adding Chapter 17.146 Housing Trust Fund, Housing Impact Fee, and Inclusionary/In-Lieu Fee Requirements to the St. Helena Municipal Code. The regulations are designed so that new non-residential developments and additions are required to pay a housing impact fee and new residential developments containing five units or more are required to include 20 percent of their units as affordable housing, and developments with less than five units pay an in-lieu fee. The fees collected from the nonresidential and residential development then go into a Housing Trust Fund. The use of Housing Trust Fund monies is directed exclusively to “increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to households of moderate, low and very low income” including costs such as land, construction, financing, and reimbursements to the City.28 The monies are available for both ownership and rental projects and services. 28 St. Helena Municipal Code. 17.146.030
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-136
These affordable housing requirements do add additional cost to market rate residential development in the process of creating additional affordable housing in St. Helena. To minimize the impact on the price of market rate housing, the Municipal Code allows developers to submit an “alternative equivalent proposal” and offers a series of concessions or incentives.29 An “alternative equivalent proposal” enables developers to meet the affordable housing requirements through alternative means like dedicating vacant land as long as the proposed alternative aligns with the purpose of the Municipal Code and is approved by the City Council. Concessions and incentives that are automatically available to residential developers who construct inclusionary units include the opportunity to submit a preliminary development proposal, priority in the City application process, and fee deferment. In addition, the City Council can grant additional concessions and incentives including extra density bonuses, changes to City standards, and monetary assistance. The automatic and discretionary concessions and incentives help expedite the process of building affordable housing and therefore minimize the cost to developers.

On/Offsite Improvement Standards
The St. Helena Municipal Code lists requirements for new development related to sewer and water connections, parking, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, fire hydrants, and street trees.

Sewer
The City of St. Helena owns the Wastewater Treatment Plant, which provides secondary-level treatment for domestic and commercial wastewater within the City. The plant has a permitted average dry weather treatment capacity of 0.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and can treat up to 2.8 mgd during wet weather.30 In 2016, the City initiated planning efforts to upgrade the existing Plant in order to meet stricter environmental requirements. Working with the Regional Water Resources Control Board, the City developed a strategy to meet the new requirements, and began construction of the needed improvements in 2022. Construction is expected to be completed by Fall 2023.
31 Per Chapter 727, Statutes of 2004 (SB 1087), sewer providers must grant priority for service allocations to proposed development that include housing units affordable to lower-income households. Local public and private wastewater service providers must adopt written policies and procedures that grant priority for service hook-ups to developments that help meet the community’s share of the regional need for lower-income housing. In addition, the law prohibits wastewater service providers from denying, conditioning the approval, or reducing the amount of sewer service for an application for development that includes housing units affordable to lower-income households unless written findings are made as specified in Government Code Section 65589.7(c).
29 St. Helena Municipal Code 17.146.050
30 California Regional Water Quality Control Boar San Francisco Bay Region. Order No. R2-0210-0105, NPDES No. CA0038016. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2010/R2-2010-0105.pdf. 31 City of St. Helena. Initial Study. WWTRP Phase I Upgrades Project. November 2020. https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/2831/st._helena_wwtrp_public_initial_ study_compiled.pdf
Accessed January 28, 2022.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-137
Water
The City has three sources of potable water: Bell Canyon Reservoir, water purchased from the City of Napa under a long-term water supply contract, and groundwater from City-owned and operated wells. Bell Canyon Reservoir is the City’s primary source of potable water. Bell Canyon is an on-stream reservoir with a physical storage capacity of 2,384 acre-feet, although the maximum amount of water that is available annually to the City is 992 acre-feet (AF). The City also purchases significant water quantities from the City of Napa through a contract, expiring in 2035, which guarantees delivery of a minimum of 600 AF per year. Additionally, the City pumps groundwater from its two wells. The City seeks to limit groundwater withdrawals to 450 AF in normal years.

The City calculates a safe annual yield for its water system as “the quantity of water which can be reliable delivered on an annual basis through most rainfall years, including a dry year (rainfall at 22” to 25.9”) without undue hardship on water customers through water shortage restrictions. The City defines “undue hardship” as three or more consecutive months of Phase II water restrictions or Phase III water restrictions. Based on water supplies available in 2020, the City estimates the safe annual yield of its water system is 992 AF.

In 2011, the City adopted a new Water Shortage Emergencies Ordinance. The ordinance establishes three water shortage emergency phases with increasing water use restrictions. Phase I water regulations are triggered when the supply/usage balance is in deficit, meaning that the five-year rolling average of total water usage exceeds the safe annual yield of the City’s water system. Under Phase I regulations, water customers are prohibited from expanding or installing new water-using appliances, plumbing, or improvements, such as landscaping and pools, unless the installation will result in no increase in water use. Replacement fixtures must be water efficient. In addition, new water connections for new development may only be approved if the projected water demand for the project can be offset by a corresponding reduction in the existing water demand on the city water system. New development proposals may demonstrate that the project is waterneutral through a combination of on-site water conservation measures, off-site retrofitting or well water.

Phase II water shortage emergency regulations include all Phase I regulations plus mandatory conservation measures. Under Phase II, residential water users are limited to 65 gallons per person per day. An additional allocation of 2,500 gallons per month for single-family homes landscape irrigation is provided during the April through October billing cycle. Multiple-family or mobile home occupants are permitted up to 70 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of landscaped area or for dedicated irrigation meters, a 60 percent limit of current reference evapotranspiration. There are strict penalties for non-compliance of these mandatory conservation measures. In addition, no new water connections are permitted during a Phase II water emergency. Phase III water shortage emergency regulations limit water use further to 60 gallons per person per day, and place additional limits on landscape irrigation.32
The City has adequate water supply to meet current demand, however the effects of climate change will likely reduce water supply from current sources. The City needs to obtain new water supplies and/or achieve more 32 City of St. Helena. Report to the City Council. June, 23 2020. https://sthelena.civicweb.net/document/41860/2020 Accessed January 28, 2022.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-138
water savings in order to reliably meet future water demand. At the same time, the City recognizes that any new water supply, even if forthcoming, is likely to be expensive, potentially increasing the unit cost of potable water. The main emphasis within the General Plan (regarding water supply) is on conservation, seeking to reduce demand by all classes of users.

According to the City’s Water Shortage Emergency Ordinance, if the City’s water balance pursuant to the safe yield calculation is in deficit, then the City must comply with Phase I water restrictions. Most importantly, this requires that any new water demand, such as from a new residential project, must be completely offset by a reduction in current water demand, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Phases II and III involve the imposition of mandatory water restrictions on customers. If Phase II appears imminent, the City Council must appoint a Water Board which, if Phase II is implemented, will work with the Director of Public Works to ensure compliance by all sectors (residential, commercial, and industrial) with Phase II restrictions. Phase III restrictions are severe.

Per Chapter 727, Statutes of 2004 (SB 1087), water providers must grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower-income households. Public and private water providers must adopt written policies and procedures that grant priority for service hook-ups to developments that help meet the community’s share of the regional need for lower-income housing. In addition, the law prohibits water providers from denying, conditioning the approval, or reducing the amount of water service for an application for development that includes housing affordable to lower-income households unless written findings are made as specified in Government Code Section 65589.7(c). A city may deny, condition, or reduce water services to developments that include lower-income housing units if the city does not have “sufficient water supply” as defined in Government Code Section 66473.7(a) (2) or is operating under a water shortage emergency as defined in Section 350 of the Water Code.

The 2040 General Plan contains Implementation Action PF1-J that commits the City to granting projects that include affordable housing units priority access to water resources over other new projects should the capacity of local water systems become inadequate to meet the full demand for new connections.

Parking
Residential parking requirements vary according to the number of dwelling units, as follows:
• One to two dwelling units: Minimum of two spaces per unit, with one of the spaces in a garage or carport.
• Three or more dwelling units: Minimum of one space under cover per unit, plus either a half space or one additional whole space depending on the number of bedrooms in the units. • Rooming, boarding, or lodging house: Minimum of one space per room, and two spaces for the owneroccupied unit.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-139
• Mobile home: Minimum of two spaces per unit plus centralized space for guest parking.33 The one exception to these requirements is housing built for senior citizens, with funding from the Federal or State government, which is affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.34 For all other uses not covered in the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission has the power to set the parking requirements based upon the general parking guidelines of the City. As part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, the City is reducing proposed parking requirements for residential uses.

Other
Other miscellaneous improvements required by the City of St. Helena include curb, gutter and sidewalk treatments, fire hydrants, and street trees. Whenever new development fronts a public street, the developers are required to provide curb, gutter, and sidewalk treatments to the specifications supplied by the Public Works Director.35 If the Fire Chief or Public Works Director decides that there is not sufficient supply of fire hydrants nearby, new development would cover the cost of additional hydrants as necessary.36 Finally, if a new development fronts a planting strip, then the owner must care for and maintain the trees and other vegetation in the strip. The water, parking, and other miscellaneous on-and-off site improvements standards do not constrain residential development in St. Helena.

Building Codes and Enforcement
For the purpose of establishing proper regulations for the administration of the various codes covered in the Building Code, the City has adopted each of Chapter 1 of the California Building Code, Chapter 1 of the Plumbing Code, Chapter 1 of the Mechanical Code, and Annex H of the Electrical Code, 2019 Edition, excepting additions, revisions and omissions listed in Section 15.08.020 of the Municipal Code. The major local amendments included the continuation of St. Helena’s program for the seismic retrofit of unreinforced buildings and the requirement that all new construction install an approved automatic fire-suppression sprinkler system.

Existing residential structures that undergo additions or repairs equal to at least 50 percent of the existing floor area, and units experiencing a change in occupancy to a more hazardous use, also require the installation of an approved sprinkler system.37 Otherwise, Title 15 of the St. Helena Municipal Code closely adheres to the 2019 California Building Standards Code and places no greater constraints on housing development than any other jurisdiction in the State that follows this model code.

The enforcement of building codes within the City of St. Helena is centered on the inspection of new construction and remodels or renovations requiring building permits. The City has the power to inspect and declare unsafe any structure or piece of equipment, be it existing or under-construction, that does not meet specific Municipal Code standards. These include, but are not limited to, structures with insufficient modes of egress; structures that are unsafe or that have been made structurally unsound due to fire, earthquake, or other 33 Municipal Code 17.124.030 Minimum on-site parking requirements 34 Municipal Code 17.144 Affordable Housing
35 Municipal Code 12.08.090 Plans and specifications.
36 Municipal Code 16.32.110 Fire protection.
37 Municipal Code, 15.36.060 Fire protection systems.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-140
natural disaster; buildings that are deemed a public nuisance; and buildings that have been constructed or maintained in violation of local or state law. Once a building has been declared unsafe, the building official may issue notice that the structure be repaired, vacated, or demolished within a reasonable amount of time and with the appropriate permits.38
Building and Development Impact Fees
The City’s building department fee schedule is designed to directly offset the costs incurred by the City when processing and reviewing development applications, and to inspect new construction. Fees are charged when a building permit is issued and are based on building plans and estimated construction costs.

Development impact fees are charged to new projects in order to offset costs for the construction, expansion, and maintenance of off-site improvements that either were built for the purposes of the new project or were existing improvements from which the new developments will benefit. In the case of St. Helena, impact fees are charged for public safety, civic facilities, water and wastewater services, a drainage, traffic mitigation, and schools. In 2013, the City conducted a comprehensive study and update of all of its development impact fees.

As a result, total impact fees for single-family houses decreased from $19.78 per square foot to $16.32 per square foot, a 17.5 percent reduction. Fees for multiple-family development increased from $13.78 per square foot to $21.37 per square foot, a 55 percent increase.

The single-family fee calculations shown in 0 are based on an example 2,300 square foot single family residence with three-bedrooms and two-bathrooms with a total construction cost estimate of approximately $920,000 ($400 per square foot).
38 City of St. Helena. St. Helena Municipal Code, Title 15. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/sthelena/.

Accessed January 31, 2022.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-141
Table 32 Building Permit and Development Impact Fees, Single-Family Home Fee Description Fee Amount Total
Building Department
Permit Fee 381 433
City Impact Fees (per square-foot)
Public Safety Fee $1.04 $2,392
Civic Facilities Fee $1.95 $4,485
Parks Fee $7.16 $16,468
Water System Fee $3.05 $7,015
Wastewater System Fee $0.45 $1,035
Drainage System Fee $0.73 $1,679
Transportation Fee $1.94 $4,462
Housing Fee 2.5% of valuation $23,000
Other District Fees (per square-foot)
School District Fee $3.20 $6,831
Example Project
Building Size (square feet) 2,300
Construction Cost (per square-foot) $400
Valuation $920,000
Fees as % of Construction Cost 7.7%
Source: City of St. Helena Planning Department; Mintier Harnish, 2022 0 shows sample fee calculations for a conceptual multi-family development project. The example is an eight unit, three story project that totals 6,780 square feet.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-142
Table 33 Building Permit and Development Impact Fees, Multiple-Family Development Fee Description Fee Amount Total
Building Department
Permit Fee $5,503 $5,503
City Impact Fees (per square-foot)
Public Safety Fee $1.04 $7,051
Civic Facilities Fee $1.95 $13,221
Parks Fee $12.18 $82,580
Water System Fee $2.47 $16,747
Wastewater System Fee $0.66 $4,475
Drainage System Fee $0.69 $4,678
Transportation Fee $2.36 $16,001
Housing Fee 2.5% of valuation $23,000
Other District Fees (per square-foot)
School District Fee $3.20 $21,696
Example Project
Building Size (square feet) 6,780
Valuation $1,400,000
Fees as % of Construction Cost 12.3%
Source: City of St. Helena Planning Department, Mintier Harnish, 2022.

The multiple-family development impact fees have increased to reflect the costs of the improvements necessary to serve residential development. Without the funds collected through the fees, the City could not afford to make the necessary improvements in infrastructure, and thus the fees to do not represent an undue governmental constraint to housing development. In addition, fee reductions and adjustments for affordable and other housing projects are permitted on a case by case basis, as approved by City Council under Section 3, Chapter 3.32 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

Processing and Permit Procedures
The processing and permitting procedures in St. Helena are summarized in Table 34 (Timelines for Permit Procedures) and Table 35 (Typical Processing Time by Project Type) and described below using examples of a single-family unit, a multiple-family affordable housing development, and a market rate single family development. Construction of a new single-family unit requires design review approval from the Planning Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-143
Commission (three months) and a building permit (four weeks) for a total of approximately four months to process.

Table 34 Timelines for Permit Procedures
Type of Approval or Permit Typical Processing Time Approval body Ministerial Review 2 – 4 weeks Planning Director
Conditional Use Permit 3 months Planning Commission
Zone Change 6 months Planning Commission & City Council General Plan Amendment 6 months Planning Commission & City Council Design Review 3 months Planning Commission
Subdivision Maps 6 months Planning Commission & City Council Parcel Maps 3 months Planning Commission
Initial Environmental Study 6 months Planning Commission & City Council, depending on project
Environmental Impact Report 10 months Planning Commission & City Council Source: City of St. Helena, Mintier Harnish, 2022.

Table 35 Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type
Single-Family Unit Subdivision (20 units) Multiple-Family (20 Units) Required Permit Procedures
Ministerial Review - ADU Tentative Map Conditional Use Permit Design Review – new SFD Final Map
Design Review
Design Review Initial Environmental Study
Initial Environmental Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Impact
Report
Estimated Total Processing
Time 2 months 12 months 9 months
Source: City of St. Helena, Mintier Harnish, 2022.

Constraints to Housing for Persons with Disabilities
On January 1, 2002, SB 520 went into effect, requiring local jurisdictions to analyze potential governmental constraints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing for persons with disabilities as part of a jurisdictions housing element update. Under SB 520, housing elements must also include one of the following: 1) a program to remove constraints, or 2) provide reasonable accommodations for, “housing designed for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.” A jurisdiction can fulfill this second clause in a variety of ways including establishing policies that facilitate the provision of housing Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-144
that is physically accessible to people with mobility impairments, residential care facilities for individuals with Alzheimer’s, housing for persons with AIDS/HIV, and transitional housing that serves homeless with disabilities.

Reasonable Accommodation
The City of St. Helena adopted a reasonable accommodation ordinance in 2015 that provides a procedure to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the Acts) in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies, and procedures.

A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, their representative or any entity, when the application of a zoning law or other land use regulation, policy or practice acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. A person with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that limits or substantially limits one or more major life activities, anyone who is regarded as having such impairment or anyone who has a record of such impairment. This chapter is intended to apply to those persons who are defined as disabled under the Acts.

A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the rules, standards and practices for the siting, development and use of housing or housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of their choice. Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be made in the manner prescribed in Section 17.200.030.

Requests for reasonable accommodation are submitted on an application form provided by the Planning Department, or in the form of a letter, to the Planning Director and should contain the following information:

16. The applicant’s name, address, and telephone number.

17. Address of the property for which the request is being made.

18. The current actual use of the property.

19. The basis for the claim that the individual is considered disabled under the Acts.

20. The zoning code provision, regulation or policy that is the subject of the applicant’s requested reasonable accommodation, and a narrative and graphic (where applicable) description of the specific accommodation requested.

21. Why the reasonable accommodation is necessary to make the specific property accessible to the individual.

Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be reviewed by the Planning Director if no discretionary permit approval is required other than the request for reasonable accommodation. Other Review Authority. Requests for reasonable accommodation submitted for concurrent review with another discretionary permit application shall be reviewed by the review authority reviewing the discretionary permit application. The Director shall make a written determination within forty-five (45) days and either grant, grant with modifications, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation in accordance with Section 17.200.060. The written decision to grant or Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-145
deny a request for reasonable accommodation will be consistent with the Acts and shall be based on a consideration of the following factors:

22. Whether the housing which is the subject of the request will be used by an individual considered disabled under the Acts.

9. Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Acts.

10. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the town.

11. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a town program or law, including but not limited to land use or zoning.

12. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would adversely impact surrounding properties or uses.

13. Whether there are reasonable alternatives that would provide an equivalent level of benefit without requiring a modification or exception to the City’s applicable rules, standards and practices.

14. Whether the accommodation would alter the significance of a historic structure.

In granting a request for reasonable accommodation, the Planning Director may impose any conditions of approval deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the reasonable accommodation would comply with the findings required by subsection A of this section, including but not limited to the following:

23. Inspection of the property periodically, as specified, to verify compliance with this chapter and any conditions of approval.

15. Removal of the improvements, where removal would not constitute an unreasonable financial burden, when the need for which the accommodation was granted no longer exists.

16. Time limits and/or expiration of the approval if the need for which the accommodation was granted no longer exists.

17. Recordation of a deed restriction requiring removal of the accommodating feature once the need for it no longer exists.

18. Measures to reduce the impact on surrounding uses.

19. Measures in consideration of the physical attributes of the property and structures.

20. Other conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

A determination by the Planning Director to grant or deny a request for reasonable accommodation may be appealed to the City Council in compliance with Section 17.08.180.

The City's reasonable accommodation ordinance is not a constraint to housing for residents with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the Acts) in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies and procedures.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-146
Zoning and Land Use
The City of St. Helena allows both intermediate care and residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons as by-right uses in the LR-1A, LR, MR, and HR zones, as required by SB520. Intermediate care and residential care facilities serving seven or more persons require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.39 The City’s parking and loading requirements do not have specific provisions related to persons with disabilities, but there is a provision stating that “rest homes, convalescent hospitals, residential care and similar group care facilities” require only one space for each four beds, which is a reduced requirement compared to the two parking spaces required for typical “one-and two-family dwelling units.”40 Consequently, the reduced parking requirements for group care facilities decrease the parking requirements for some disabled persons, but parking requirements for residential development need to serve all disabled persons.

Permits and Processing
The City’s permitting and processing procedures do not negatively affect the ability to design or retrofit homes that will be accessible for the disabled or constrain the siting of group homes. The City, however, applies the same process required for other renovations to retrofitting homes for accessibility, and the City does not have a special process for such retrofits.

As discussed above, residential and intermediate care facilities with fewer than six persons are allowed by-right.

Although care facilities with seven or more persons are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit in the residential zones, no additional permits are required. This is consistent with the City’s requirements for other multifamily uses such as condominiums, townhomes, apartments, and dwelling groups containing more than four units, which also require a Conditional Use Permit. There are no additional requirements placed on residential or intermediate facilities.

Building Codes
In 2019, the City of St. Helena adopted the 2019 California Building Code with minor amendments. The changes made to this Code by the City, enumerated in the Governmental Constraints section of this document, do not unfairly treat residential and intermediate care homes differently than other residential uses.

Nevertheless, no specific exemptions to the 2019 California Building Code exist for housing for disabled persons. The City of St. Helena does not have local universal design requirements but adopted a reasonable accommodate ordinance in 2015 which provides a reasonable accommodation procedure related to "a zoning law or other land use regulation, policy or practice acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities", including building codes and the issuance of Building Permits.
39 City of St. Helena Municipal Code, Title 17.
40 City of St. Helena Municipal Code, Chapter 17.124: Parking and Loading Requirements Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-147

9. Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Government Code Section 65583(a) (7) requires the “analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development.” 41 This is important due to the key role played by energy efficiency in determining the relative affordability of housing. Lower rates of energy usage decrease utility costs for residents, making a housing unit more affordable. The discussion that follows outlines current State policies and development standards along with local City policies that promote energy conservation for new and existing development in the City of St. Helena.

Instituted by legislative action in 1978 to reduce overall energy consumption statewide, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards set thresholds and guidelines for energy efficiency for both residential and nonresidential construction. The revised standards for 2022 went into effect August 11, 2021, under Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. Title 24 is otherwise known as the California Building Standards Code. The energy requirements of the new State code are significantly more stringent than the prior codes (heat pump requirements for single-family and multi-family homes and businesses; electricity-ready requirements for single-family homes; and new solar power requirements for high-rises, hotels/motels, tenant spaces, offices, stores, restaurants, schools, and civic spaces) and are intended to progress to 100 percent clean electricity and carbon neutrality by 2050 or earlier.

In addition to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Part 11 of Title 24 contains California’s Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). St. Helena adopted the revised standards in 2019, with amendments to require all new indoors plumbing fixtures to meet the 20 percent reduction in water use, a 20 percent reduction in cement use in foundations, and certified U.S. EPA Phase II certified wood-burning devices or pellet-fueled device. These amendments are not considered an impediment to housing development.

On a local level, the 2040 City of St. Helena General Plan Climate Change Element addresses energy conservation for residential development by including goals such as:
• reducing energy demand through improved building and design; • reducing consumption and divert waste; and
• increasing community engagement and advocacy.

The City participates in an AB811 program that allows commercial and residential property owners to finance renewable energy, water efficiency, and energy efficiency improvements through a property tax assessment.

Additionally, the City of St. Helena is currently implementing a program to reduce GHG emissions from City facilities and has an Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee and a Water Advisory Board that oversee its natural resources for energy conservation.
41 HCD Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements, “Opportunities for Energy Conservation.” Accessed September 24, 2008. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element/index.html.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-148
The City has included Programs H-QQ through H-TT to educate, encourage, and fund pushes for energy conservation within the community. Through education provided by the City, residents, contractors, and property owners can learn about various ways to integrate energy conservation programs into St. Helena residential developments. The City also intends to stay up to date on State efficiency and building code standards to ensure new and rehabilitated housing developments provide future owners and tenants with longterm cost-savings and energy efficiency.42 Additionally, to further encourage energy efficiency, the City also aims to explore the possibility of offering low-interest loans for energy conservation measures, in addition to continuing to participate in AB-811 programs to finance local efforts. 42 See St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15.18
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-149

10. Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Key Findings
• St. Helena’s Zoning Code allows for a variety of housing types in the City including multiple-family units, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, manufactured and mobile homes, and accessory dwelling units. However, to comply with Section 65915 through 65918 of the California Government Code, St. Helena should amend the Zoning Code to reflect the new maximum density bonus provisions that were adopted by the State in 2020. Additionally, St. Helena must also amend the Zoning Code to allow for low barrier navigation centers, consistent with State law.

Multiple-Family Rental Housing
The St. Helena Zoning Code allows multiple-family dwellings by right in the High Density Residential (HR) zoning district. Projects permitted by right require only routine approvals and are subject to design review by the Planning Commission. In addition, the Medium Density Residential (MR) district permits the construction of attached duplex or triplex units with a Conditional Use Permit.43 Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing
Per California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918, local governments are required to provide density bonus provisions to projects that comply with specific standards. Legislation approved in 2020 increased the maximum density bonus amounts for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing. The California Government Code describes how maximum densities shall be calculated for very low-, low-, and moderateincome housing in a tabular format. Additionally, local governments are also required to provide one or more incentives for qualifying projects and are required to accept an incentive proposed by a developer unless the incentive proposal is found to cause environmental harm, a health and safety issue, a cost reduction, a detriment to historical property, or otherwise contrary to law. Both density bonuses and incentives are granted based on the number of affordable units present in each project.

The City of St. Helena currently establishes density bonus provisions for affordable housing in Chapter 17.144 (Affordable Housing). The provisions in that Chapter do not reflect the new maximum density bonus tier framework that was adopted by the State in 2020. Because of this, the City is not currently in compliance and has included Program H-G to commit the City to amend the Zoning Code for compliance with California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918. The City is currently (2022) updating the Affordable Housing Chapter for compliance with State law as part of a comprehensive Zoning Code update.

Housing for Permanent and Seasonal Agricultural Employees Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 of the California Health and Safety Code establish specific requirements for the permitting of agricultural employee housing in a jurisdictions’ zoning code. Specifically, Section 17021.5 43 City of St. Helena. St. Helena Municipal Code, Title 17.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-150
mandates that “employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use.” 44 Furthermore, designated employee housing, as defined above, cannot be subject to Conditional Use Permit requirements, zoning variance, fees, taxes, or any other requirement other than those pertaining to a traditional single-family structure. Section 17021.6 pertains to larger employee housing facilities featuring a maximum of 36 beds in group quarters, or 12 single-family units.

Under this legislation, such units are deemed an agricultural land use and cannot be subject to any restrictions, conditional use requirements, zoning variance, fees, taxes, or other requirements not imposed on other agricultural uses in the same zone.

The City is in compliance with Sections 17021.5 or 17021.6 of the California Health and Safety Code. The A-20, AP, and W zoning districts allow large employee housing facilities (12 units or 36 beds) by right. Whereas, the WW, LR-1A, LR, MR, and HR zoning districts allow agriculture employee housing for six or fewer by right.

Zoning for Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, and Supportive Housing
AB-139 requires local government to identify a zone(s) where emergency shelters are allowed by-right without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. Local governments are authorized to impose only those development standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone. However, a local government may impose specified objective standards, including standards for off-street parking based on demonstrated need, as specified. The intent of these regulations is to help streamline the development of varying housing types.

AB-139 requires the need for emergency shelter to be assessed based on the capacity necessary to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count, the number of shelter beds available on a yearround and seasonal basis, the number of beds that go unused on an average monthly basis, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing. The bill also requires sufficient parking for employees and one space per two beds in the shelter. Under AB-139 and California Government Code Section 65651, local governments shall allow supportive and transitional housing as a by-right use in all districts where single-family and multiple-family dwelling unit uses are allowed. Additionally, the State requires these uses shall be subject only to those regulations that apply to other residential dwellings (i.e., single-family dwellings, multiple-family dwellings) of the same type in the same district.

The City is in compliance with State laws related to emergency shelters, supportive housing, and transitional housing. Currently, the Zoning Code allows both supportive and transitional housing by-right in all residential zoning districts. Additionally, emergency shelters are identified as a by-right use in the I and SC zoning districts.

Residential Care Facilities
California Government Code Section 65583 requires that housing elements provide a program to “address and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, 44 California Government Health and Safety Code 17021.5 (b) Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-151
and development of housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.” In line with encouraging the development of housing for those with disabilities, the State requires that small, licensed residential care facilities (defined as facilities with six or fewer residents) be allowed “by right” in all residential zones. Additionally, the State, through HCD, requires that cities consider constraints to reasonable accommodation for large, licensed residential care facilities (defined as facilities with seven or more residents).45
The City of St. Helena allows both intermediate care and residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons as by-right uses in all residential zones, in compliance with state law.Intermediate care and residential care facilities serving seven or more persons require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.46 Low Barrier Navigation Centers
California Government Code Section 65660 identifies low barrier navigation centers are facilities that focus on moving people into permanent housing and connecting temporary residents with opportunities for income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Similar to displaced persons shelters, these facilities are intended to accommodate people with disabilities, pets and their owners, partners (if not a gender-specific site), the storage of possessions, and survivors of domestic violence. Specifically, the State mandates that low barrier navigation centers have services “to meet the diverse needs of (the) population.” As of 2018, low barrier navigation centers are allowed by right wherever multiple-family dwellings and mixed-use development are allowed. In addition, local governments may not impose parking requirements onto low barrier navigation centers.

The City is not currently in compliance and has included Program H-G to commit the City to amend the Zoning Code for compliance with California Government Code Section 65660. In updating the Code the City shall list low barrier navigation facilities as allowed by-right wherever multiple-unit dwellings and mixed-use development are allowed.

Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
Single-room occupancy residential units are a traditional form of affordable housing for very low- and lowincome individuals. These units consist of a single room, often between 80 and 250 square feet in size, with or without cooking and sanitary facilities, that is rented out, often on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. The St.

Helena Municipal Code currently permits single-room occupancy type units in the form of Lodging Houses serving up to two paying occupants in an owner-occupied dwelling, as an accessory use in the LR and MR zoning districts. The HR zoning district currently allows single room occupancy units by-right. As defined under Chapter 17.04 of the Municipal Code, lodging houses are buildings other than hotels, motels or bed and breakfast inns, where individuals can pay a rent in exchange for accommodations, including room and board, or 45 HCD Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements, “Constraints for People with Disabilities.” Accessed May 19, 2022. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/constraints/constraints-for-people-with-disabilities.shtml 46 City of St. Helena Municipal Code, Title 17.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-152
board alone. Lodging houses serving more than two and up to five occupants require a use permit. Accessory structures featuring cooking and sanitation facilities are required to meet design and building standards like those of standard single-family and second units. Units without such facilities are subject to significantly fewer requirements and are more likely to address very low- and low-income housing needs.47 Factory Built Housing and Mobile Homes
Government Code Section 65852.3(a) requires that manufactured and mobile homes, including the lots on which they are installed, meeting certain standards of construction and be subject to the same development standards that apply to conventional, stick built, single-family homes.48 In accordance with this legislation, the St. Helena Municipal Code, Title 17, defines a single-family dwelling to include a “mobilehome constructed to meet 1976 HUD standards, when placed on a permanent foundation, which is designed or used exclusively as a residence, including only one dwelling unit.” 49 Mobile units meeting the above definition are permitted under single-family site development standards in all zones that allow single-family housing units by right.

In addition, the Low Density Residential (LR), Low Density Residential One Acre Minimum (LR-1A), Medium Density Residential (MR) and High Density Residential (HR) districts specifically permit as an allowed use, permanent mobile homes constructed in accordance with the 1974 safety standards and installed on a permanent foundation. Chapter 17.100 of the Municipal Code sets forth requirements for the Mobilehome Park Overlay (MHP) zoning district that applies the State Mobilehome Parks Act to the establishment and operation of mobilehome parks within the boundaries of the City of St. Helena.50 Under these provisions of the Municipal Code, St. Helena fully adheres to the State standards regarding manufactured and mobile homes, and mobile home parks.

Accessory Dwelling Units
The St. Helena Zoning Code allows accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in all residential zoning districts, in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. ADUs are defined as attached or detached dwelling units that provide independent living facilities on the same parcel as a legal single-unit or multiple-family unit dwelling, and which include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. Due to the lower cost of construction and reduced environmental impact, the State has enacted many laws aimed at incentivizing the development of ADUs to help combat the worsening housing crisis. The State requires local governments to treat all ADUs that comply with specific standards as ministerial approvals.

Local governments reserve the exclusive right to impose specific design and development standards, which include, but are not limited to setbacks, minimum and maximum parcel size, and maximum height. Second units are exempt from the GMS in Municipal Code Section 17.152.040. 47 City of St. Helena. St. Helena Municipal Code, Title 17. 48 GCS 65852.3(a) standards include the constructed or purchased after October 1976, certified under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, and installed on a foundation system pursuant to Section 18551 of the Health and Safety Code.
49 City of St. Helena. St. Helena Municipal Code, Title 17. 50 City of St. Helena. St. Helena Municipal Code, Title 17.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-153

11. Housing Resources
Future Housing Need
State Housing Element law requires that a local jurisdiction accommodate a share of the region’s projected housing needs for the planning period, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Compliance with this requirement is measured by the City’s ability to providing adequate land with adequate density and appropriate development standards to accommodate the RHNA. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), as the regional planning agency, is responsible for allocating the RHNA to individual jurisdictions within the region.

For the sixth Housing Element cycle, the City of St. Helena has been allocated a RHNA of 254 units, divided into four income levels as follows:
• Very Low Income: 103 units (41 percent)12F
51 • Low Income: 59 units (23 percent)
• Moderate Income: 26 units (10 percent)
• Above Moderate Income: 66 units (26 percent)
The City must ensure the availability of residential sites at adequate densities and appropriate development standards to accommodate these units by income category.

Credits Towards RHNA
Projects with housing units approved or permitted that would not be occupied before the start of the planning period can be credited towards meeting the City’s RHNA. These units can count towards the RHNA based on affordability and unit count provided it can be demonstrated that the units can be built within the planning period of February 2023 through February 2031. Affordability (income category) is based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability of the units within the project.

In addition, the City can project the number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that may be built between 2023 and 2031, based on trends of ADU permitting during the last three years.

Pending or Approved/Entitled Projects
Currently there is one single-family residence and four moderate-income units, not to exceed 120 percent of the AMI, that are approved and undergoing building permit processing. In addition, there are 87 units that are pending planning/entitlement approval under the Hunter Subdivision project. While the Hunter Subdivision project is proposing approximately 25 affordable units, because the affordable agreements are not in place at 51 The City has a RHNA allocation of 103 very low income units (inclusive of extremely low income units). Pursuant to State law (AB 2634), the City must project the number of extremely low income housing needs based on Census income distribution or assume 50 percent of the very low income units as extremely low. Therefore, the City generally estimates 52 extremely low and 51 very low income units.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-154
the time of Housing Element, all unit credits were assumed to be above moderate. Table 36 details the pending and entitled projects with housing units.

Table 36 Pending and Entitled Projects
Project
Number Address APN Zoning Project Description Net Units PL20-046 777 Pratt Ave. 009-030-060 Twenty-acre
Agriculture
District (A-20)
Construction of a single-family
residence
1 above
moderateincome
PL20-015 963 Pope St. 009-090-
012/013
Medium
Density
Residential
Construction of four (4) new deed
restricted affordable housing
units on a site with one (1)
existing unit.
1 moderate
and 4 lowerincome
#2010-40 Terminus of
Adams Street
009-030-057 Medium
Density
Residential
Hunter Subdivision Tentative
Map to subdivide the 16.9-acre
parcel into 51 single-family lots
and a 3.4-acre multi-family
parcel. The applicant intends to
construct 51 single-family
residences, 11 ADUs, and 25
multi-family units.
87 above
moderateincome
Projected Accessory Dwelling Units
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.1, the City can satisfy its regional housing need using ADU and junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) trends and existing resources and incentives that promote their development. Using 2018-2021 data on ADUs/JADUs, the City has issued permits for approximately 9 ADUs on average. Extending this trend over the next 8 years, the City can assume approximately 72 ADU units will be permitted over the next planning period. Feedback from public outreach and research on ADU rental prices indicated that ADUs are typically rented at market rate and should be considered above moderate.

Remaining RHNA
Accounting for the entitled, approved and pending projects, as well as projected ADUs, the City has a remaining RHNA of approximately 184 units, including 162 lower- and 22 moderate-income units. Existing pending and approved projects and ADU trends currently meets the City’s above moderate RHNA requirement. Table 37 details the existing progress towards the 6th cycle RHNA and the remaining RHNA that the City must demonstrate the availability of sites with appropriate zoning and development standards.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-155
Table 37 Progress Towards RHNA
Income/
Affordability Category RHNA Allocation Pending or Approved Estimated ADUs Remaining RHNA Lower 162 0 0 162
Moderate 26 4 0 22
Above Moderate 66 88 72 0
Total 254 92 72 184
Residential Site Inventory
Following the analysis of RHNA credits, specific sites throughout the city were considered for potential for housing development. Site selection for the residential site inventory started with City owned sites where residential development is in line with short-term City goals, then vacant and nonvacant sites zoned for residential use, and lastly sites that could be rezoned to accommodate residential development or residential development at a higher density. Several constraints were considered for each site, including environmental concerns, utility or infrastructure access, feasibility of redevelopment during the next planning period, and realistic capacity assumptions. Sites identified for lower income housing must meet certain density and site requirements, including a minimum density of 20 units per acre, parcel size between 0.5 and 10 acres, and access to high performing schools, jobs, amenities, health care facilities, and grocery stores.

City-Owned Sites
A review of City-owned properties for sites that are feasible for housing and reflect City priorities was conducted by the City Council in 2021. There are three City-owned properties (1480 Main Street, 1572 Railroad Avenue, and Adams Street/Library Lane) where near-term affordable housing development is in line with community and City priorities for these sites. In 2015, Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc conducted a Feasibility Analysis and Comparison of Sites for New Affordable Housing Development which looked at site feasibility and capacity for each of the three City-owned sites. The study evaluated potential risks and time to develop each site and identified the number of units, cost per unit, and funding gaps associated with each site. The analysis determined the three City-owned sites included in the site inventory are suitable for development of housing with 100 percent of units dedicated to lower-income housing. The capacity analysis factored in the size of the site, buildable footprints, maximum allowable floor area ratio and height, a ground-floor commercial assumption, and required open and support services spaces. The inventory incorporated the 2015 site feasibility and capacity analysis and revised certain assumptions as needed based on land use changes and new density bonus law.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-156
Site 1: 1480 Main Street (APN 009-211-016)
Table 38 Site 1 Summary
Current Use Fire Stations and Vacant City Hall Structures Parcel Size 1.66 acres (0.9 acres available for redevelopment) Existing General Plan Land Use Central Business and Public/Quasi-Public Existing Zoning Public/Quasi-Public
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed-Use
Allowed Density 12 to 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 22 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 6 Lower Income units
Site 1 is a 1.66-acre property owned by the City of St. Helena located at 1480 Main Street. City goals for the site include redevelopment of the portion of the site fronting Main Street with a visitor-serving commercial uses as a primary use and housing as a secondary use. Current uses on-site include the St. Helena Fire Department on the northern portion of the site and a vacant one-story building on the southwestern portion of the site. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone change is proposed to change the land use and zoning designation from Central Business & Public/Quasi-Public to Mixed-Use.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-157
The site developable area is assumed to be approximately 0.9 acres, with the removal of the vacant building on the southwestern portion of the site. The mixed-use zoning allows a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre and a floor area ratio of 1.0, which includes residential development. The redevelopment area could accommodate approximately 22units based allowed density alone. However, since housing would be a secondary use of the site, the inventory assumes approximately 6 lower-income units could be accommodated on-site on upper floors or behind commercial structures.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-158
Site 2: 1572 Railroad Avenue (APN 009-193-002)
Table 39 Site 2 Summary
Current Use Temporary City Hall
Parcel Size 0.93 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Business and Professional Office Existing Zoning Business and Professional Office
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 24 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 20 Lower Income units
Site 2 is a 0.93-acre property owned by the City of St. Helena located at 1572 Railroad Avenue. City goals are in line with affordable housing development on the site. This site is currently used as a temporary location for City Hall. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone is proposed to change the land use and zoning designation to High Density Residential.

The entire 0.93-acre site is able to be redeveloped with the removal of the existing buildings. Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, 24 units would be permitted as a baseline. Density bonus provisions allowed with affordable housing projects would increase the number of units permitted on-site. However, 20 lower-income units were assumed, consistent with the 2015 site feasibility and capacity analysis, in order to ensure adequate off-street parking capacity.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-159
Site 3: Adams Street (APN 009-150-006)
Table 40 Site 3 Summary
Current Use Vacant
Parcel Size 5.6
Existing General Plan Land Use Central Business
Existing Zoning Central Business
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Central Business
Allowed Density n/a
Site Capacity n/a
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 31 Lower Income units
Site 3 is a 5.6-acre property owned by the City of St. Helena located at the terminus of Adams Street and the crossroads of Adams Street/Library Lane. City priorities of the site include a mix of public, commercial, and residential uses. The site is currently vacant but being leased for a small vineyard operation. No land use changes are proposed as residential uses are permitted on upper stories within the Central Business district.

The site inventory assumes a portion of the site, approximately 1.3 acres, would be dedicated for affordable housing, while the remainder of the site would be used for other public and commercial uses such as a potential location for City Hall and Police station. Based on the 2015 site feasibility and capacity analysis, approximately 31 units could be accommodated on the portion of the site adjacent to the Public Library.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-160
Privately Owned Vacant and Nonvacant Properties
After reviewing the pending and approved projects, existing ADU/JADU trends, and City-owned properties, additional capacity is needed to fully accommodate the City’s RHNA and to allow for a buffer. A desktop and City tour of parcels that could accommodate more housing and meet the City’s regional housing needs was conducted. Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(a), these included:
• Vacant sites zoned for residential use
• Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow residential development • Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density than existing conditions
• Commercially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher residential density than existing conditions
• Sites suitable for rezoning to allow for residential uses or allow residential uses at a high density • Sites zoned for residential use or suitable for rezoning to allow residential uses with expressed property owner interest for residential development
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-161
Site 4: 905 Main Street (APN 009-180-008)
Table 41 Site 4 Summary
Current Use Vacant
Parcel Size 0.27 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Mixed-Use
Existing Zoning Service Commercial
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed-Use
Allowed Density 12 to 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 5 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 5 Above Moderate Income units
Site 4 is a 0.27-acre property located at 905 Main Street. The property is a vacant site in a location prime for development along Main Street. The property owner has expressed interest in development of the site with housing. A zoning change is proposed to change the zoning designation from Service Commercial to MixedUse, which would bring the property into conformance with the existing General Plan land use designation.

The site is vacant, and the entire 0.27-acre site is able to be developed. Based on maximum allowed density under Mixed-Use, 5 above-moderate income units are feasible.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-162
Site 5: Main Street between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane (APN 009-660-005) Table 42 Site 5 Summary
Current Use Vacant
Parcel Size 1.8 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Service Commercial
Existing Zoning Service Commercial
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 46 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 50 Lower Income units
Site 5 is a 1.8-acre property located on Main Street between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane. The property is a vacant site in a location prime for development along Main Street. The site is privately owned currently but has been identified as an affordable housing site for future acquistion by an affordable housing non-profit group, consistent with an approved development agreement for the Farmstead Hotel. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone is proposed to change the land use and zoning designation from Service Commercial to High Density Residential to allow for affordable housing development.

The entire 1.8-acre site is vacant and able to be developed. Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, a total of 46 housing units would be permitted. However, the property owner intends to develop the site to accommodate 50 affordable housing units.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-163
Site 6: 709 and 741 McCorkle Avenue (APN 009-100-031, -032) Table 43 Site 6 Summary
Current Use Single Family Residences
Parcel Size 0.9 acres each (1.8 acres combined)
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Medium Density Residential Allowed Density 5.1 to 16 units/acre
Site Capacity 28 units
Assumed Capacity and Income Category 8 Above Moderate Income units Site 6 is composed of two adjacent properties that total 1.8 acres located at 709 and 741 McCorkle Avenue.

Both properties are underutilized with one single family residence and with large undeveloped space on each property. One of the property owners expressed interest in subdividing the property pursuant to SB9, which would allow each lot to be split into two lots with development of up to two units on each lot. The current land use and zoning designation is Medium Density Residential and no changes to land use or zoning are proposed.

The sites are composed of two single family lots which could accommodate 28 units under current land use regulations. Due to the existing residences on the sites, the inventory conservatively assumed additional units would be added pursuant to SB 9. Each lot can be split into two lots with development of up to 2 units on each lot, for a total of 8 above moderate units (a net increase of 6 units). In addition, each lot could develop ADUs for a total net capacity of 10 units. However, a total of 8 above moderate income units were assumed (4 on each property), given the property owner’s development interests.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-164
Site 7: 821 Pope Street (APN 009-503-001)
Table 44 Site 7 Summary
Current Use Single Family Residence
Parcel Size 1.0 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use High Density Residential Existing Zoning High Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 26 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 10 Lower Income and 10 Moderate Income units
Site 7 is a 1.0-acre property located at 821 Pope Street. The site is underutilized with one existing single-family residence and large undeveloped areas on-site. Land use designations and existing development surrounding the site consist of multi-family housing. The current land use and zoning designation is High Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed.

The entire 1.0-acre site is able to be redeveloped. Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, development of 26 units would be permitted. However, a total of 20 units, 10 lower income units and 10 moderate income units, is assumed in order to accommodate off-street parking capacity.

This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and is considered non-vacant, therefore requiring byright approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-165
Site 8: 882 and 886 College Avenue (APN 009-070-043, -044, -045) Table 45 Site 8 Summary
Current Use Vacant
Parcel Size 1.5 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Public/Quasi-Public
Existing Zoning A-20 (Agriculture)
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 39 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 15 Lower Income and 15 Moderate Income units
Site 8 is composed of three adjacent properties that total 1.5 acres located at 882 and 886 College Avenue. All three properties are vacant and are owned by a single property owner who has expressed interest in residential development on these properties. The site is adjacent to areas with existing multi-family development. A General Plan Amendment and zoning change is proposed to change the land use and zoning designation from Public/Quasi-Public and Agriculture to High Density Residential.

The entire 1.5-acre site is able to be redeveloped. Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, 39 units would be permitted. However, a total of 30 units, 15 lower-income units and 15 moderate income units, is assumed in order to accommodate off-street parking capacity.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-166
Site 9: 1447 and 1515 Spring Street (APN 009-590-003, -010) Table 46 Site 9 Summary
Current Use Single Family Residences
Parcel Size 2.4 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use High Density Residential Existing Zoning High Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 62 units
Income Category 24 Lower Income and 24 Above Moderate Income units Site 9 is composed of two adjacent properties that total 2.4 acres located at 1447 and 151 Spring Street. Both properties are underutilized with one existing single-family residence and large undeveloped areas on each parcel. The site is surrounded by single- and multi-family development and sites zoned High Density Residential.

The current land use and zoning designation is High Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed.

The entire 2.4-acre site is able to be redeveloped. Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, 62 units would be permitted. However, a total of 48 units, 24 lower income units and 24 above moderate income units, is assumed in order to accommodate site circulation improvements and adequate off-street parking capacity.

This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, therefore requiring by-right approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-167
Site 10: Spring Street between Hudson Avenue & Valley View Street (APN 009-441-023) Table 47 Site 10 Summary
Current Use Vineyard
Parcel Size 4.4 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 114 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 44 Lower Income and 44 Moderate Income units
Site 10 is a 4.4-acre parcel located on Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street. Recent property owner interest in residential development of the site indicates opportunity for housing. Additionally, Focus Group meetings showed interest in High Density Residential uses on this residentially zoned parcel in the form of town homes, which is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The site is considered underutilized as it has a residential land use designation but is currently used as vineyards. A General Plan Amendment and zoning change is proposed to change the zoning from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential.

The entire 4.4-acre site is able to be redeveloped. Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, 114 units would be permitted. However, a total of 88 units, 44 lower income units and 44 moderate income units, is assumed in order to accommodate adequate off-street parking capacity.

This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and is considered non-vacant, therefore requiring byright approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-168
Site 11: 601 Pope Street (APN 009-502-011)
Table 48 Site 11 Summary
Current Use Silverado Orchard Apartments
Parcel Size 2.9 acres (0.75 acres available for development) Existing General Plan Land Use High Density Residential Existing Zoning High Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 19 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 15 Moderate Income units
Site 11 is a 2.9-acre parcel located at 601 Pope Street. The site is underdeveloped and is currently occupied by the Silverado Orchard Apartments on the northeastern portion of the site with a large 0.75-acre vacant area on the southwestern portion of the site. There is opportunity to expand the existing high density housing development on-site or develop additional housing. The current land use and zoning designation is High Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed.

The site developable area is assumed to be approximately 0.75 acres on the southwest portion of the site. The redevelopment area could accommodate approximately 19 units based allowed density alone. However, 15 moderate income units are assumed in order to accommodate adequate off-street parking capacity and existing residential uses.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-169
Site 12: 1637 Spring Street (APN 009-600-018)
Table 49 Site 12 Summary
Current Use 8 Detached Residential Housing Units
Parcel Size 1.1 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning High Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 28 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 8 Additional Lower Income units
Site 12 is a 1.1-acre parcel located at 1637 Spring Street. Recent property owner interest in adding housing units on-site indicates there is opportunity to develop additional housing. The land use designation of the site is currently Medium Density Residential, changed from High Density Residential during the latest General Plan Update in 2019. However, the site is still zoned High Density Residential and is adjacent to other parcels zoned High Density Residential. A General Plan Amendment is proposed to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, in conformance with the current zoning designation.

Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, a total of 28 units would be permitted. However, based on discussions with the property-owner and existing site layout, approximately 8 additional units could be accommodated on-site. Therefore, the inventory assumed 8 lower income units, resulting in 16 units total onsite.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-170
Summary of Site Inventory
In combination with the City’s pending projects and ADU development trends, the site inventory provides adequate sites to meet the City’s RHNA allocation and buffer requirements. Between these three methods, the city can accommodate a total of 493 housing units, including 208 lower-income, 88 moderate-income, and 197 above moderate-income units. Table 50 shows a summary of the number of housing units accommodated by pending projects, ADU trends, and the site inventory.

Table 50 Summary of Housing Units
Lower Income
Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income Total
Pending Projects 0 4 88 92
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Site Inventory
Site 1 (1480 Main St.) 6 0 0 6
Site 2 (1572 Railroad Ave.) 20 0 0 20
Site 3 (Adams St.) 31 0 0 31
Site 4 (905 Main St.) 0 0 5 5
Site 5 (Main St. btw Mills Ln. and
Dowdell Ln.) 50 0 0 50
Site 6 (709 and 714 McCorkle Ave.) 0 0 8 8
Site 7 (821 Pope St.) 10 10 0 20
Site 8 (882 and 886 College Ave.) 15 15 0 30
Site 9 (1447 and 1515 Spring St.) 24 0 24 48
Site 10 (Spring St. btw Hudson Ave.

And Valley View St.) 44 44 0 88
Site 11 (601 Pope St.) 0 15 0 15
Site 12 (1637 Spring St.) 8 0 0 8
Total 208 88 197 493
St. Helena RHNA plus 20% Buffer 192 31 79 302
Surplus 16 57 118 217
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-171
Figure 48 Residential Site Inventory Map
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-172
Availability of Infrastructure and Services
The City of St. Helena is dedicated to improving existing and new infrastructure and facilities to support existing and future development. The City’s annual budget devotes funds towards the Public Works Department which provides design, construction, maintenance, and operation of public facilities and infrastructure within the city.

Public Works is responsible for infrastructure including streets, storm drains, parks, water treatment, water distribution, wastewater collection, and wastewater treatment. Environmental compliance services provided by Public Works also includes storm water pollution prevention, sustainability, protection of public trees and floodplain administration, response to infrastructure and weather emergencies. The city’s existing infrastructure system may require minor upgrades to address age and condition-related issues. New construction would be located in areas served by existing infrastructure.

Wastewater System
The City’s Integrated Utility Master Plan was adopted in 2021 and serves as the guiding document for planning and implementing sewer system improvements through the year 2040. The plan is consistent with the population, land use, employment, and housing projections presented in the 2040 General Plan. The City also has a Sewer System Management Plan that was developed in 2006 and last updated in April 2016. The City’s sewer system service area consists of the City limits and includes approximately 24 miles of active gravity sewer pipelines, 0.4 miles of force mains, and two lift stations that convey flow to the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Improvements to the Wastewater Treatment Plant began in 2022 to adhere to stricter environmental requirements and are expected to be completed in 2023.

A capacity analysis of the existing wastewater collection system showed a storm event would result in multiple pipeline capacity deficiencies and sanitary sewer overflows at several locations with the existing system.

Wastewater collection systems improvement projects proposed by the Utility Master Plan included gravity main improvements with pipeline replacement and lift station improvements. These improvements are appropriately sized to accommodate growth to 2040.

Potable Water System
The City’s Integrated Utility Master Plan serves as the guiding document for planning and implementing water system improvements through the year 2040, consistent with growth under the 2040 General Plan. Previously, the City utilized the Water Master Plan, developed in 2006, to identify infrastructure need to the year 2020. The City’s water system service area extends beyond the City limits to unincorporated areas in the Meadowood Napa Valley Resort/Neighborhood area and area between Chaix Lane and Zinfandel Lane along Main Street.

There are three main water supply sources: Bell Canyon Reservoir, Stonebridge wells, and an interconnection with the City of Napa. The City’s water system consists of approximately 47 miles of water distribution pipelines.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-173
A capacity analysis of the existing water distribution system showed there is one pump station, the Holmes pup station, that does not have sufficient firm pumping capacity to meet maximum day demand. Evaluation of the existing treated water storage system capacity found one area that does not have adequate capacity to meet peak hour demand, fire flow storage, and emergency storage. Improvement projects proposed by the Utility Master Plan to prevent system failures caused by leaks, fails, and main breaks include rehabilitation and replacement of water main and transmission lines, which would enable the City to meet potable water demands.

Storm Water System and Drainage System
The City’s Integrated Utility Master Plan guides planning and implementing the storm drainage system improvements through the year 2040 with growth projections consistent with the 2040 General Plan.

Previously, the Storm Drainage Master Plan, developed in 2000, served as the City’s guide to analyze the existing storm drain system and plan for implementation of improvements. The City’s storm drainage collection system service area consists of the city limits and includes street drainage, inlets, gravity pipelines, open channels, one storm water detention basin, and 33 outfalls that discharge in Sulphur Springs Creek, York Creek, or Napa River.

Evaluation of existing storm drainage capacity showed there would be multiple areas of flooding throughout the system in the event of a 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year storm. Improvement projects proposed by the Utility Master Plan to mitigate storm water system capacity issues include implementing an annual storm drain rehabilitation and replacement program with the assumption that approximately 1.25 percent of the system would be replaced per year until 2040.

Dry Utilities
PG&E is responsible for supplying electricity and natural gas to the City and surrounding areas. Other dry utilities such as telephone and data services and cable television are serviced by contracted providers within the city, including Xfinity and AT&T.

Circulation System
The City’s Circulation Element, updated in 2019 along with the General Plan, identifies the principal components of the City’s circulation system and issues related to parking, public transit, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The Circulation Element also includes standards and guiding principles for implementing transportation improvements.

The City’s street network is largely grid based with some streets east of State Route 29 that are not fully connected to the network. State Route 29 (Main Street) is the main street used for traveling north-south throughout the city and is the main route for vehicles traveling between Lake County, northern Sonoma County, and the City of Napa and other destinations further south. It runs northwest to southeast through the city and divides the city in two. Congestion along State Route 29 is a major issue within the city and pushes traffic onto Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 2-174
local city streets. Much of the traffic congestion seen in the city is caused by tourists traveling throughout the region. The primary transit option in the city is the Vine bus service, however ridership is low with only 0.9 percent of St. Helena residents commuting via transit. Future improvements to the City’s transportation network include improvements aimed at reducing congestion along State Route 29 and enhancing alternative modes of travel, including the addition of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Environmental Constraints
In 2019, the City certified a FEIR with the 2040 General Plan Update that analyzed all potential environmental impacts associated with the population and development growth proposed under the plan. City Council also adopted CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations identifying public benefits that override the significant and unavoidable impacts of the General Plan, including agricultural preservation, a balanced mix of land uses and sustainable land use pattern, creation of construction jobs, managing effects of regional traffic, and a shift to a multi-modal circulation system. Environmental clearance for future development projects may tier from the General Plan FEIR, thereby expediting the approval process. Mitigation measures set forth in the FEIR include measures to minimize impacts associated with potential flooding, and other environmental constraints.

References
St. Helena, City of. Integrated Utility Master Plan. St. Helena, CA. April 2021. https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/2491/cosh_utility_master_ plan_final_draft.pdf
St. Helena, City of. General Plan Update 2040. St. Helena, CA. June 2019. https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3505/final_plan_co mpiled.pdf
Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. 2015. Feasibility Analysis and Comparison of Sties for New Affordable Housing Development Final Report. Ventura, CA. September 2015.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment | June 2022 175
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022

3.Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH)
Insert Cover over this page. Do not alter any Heading 1s underneath the covers.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Public Review Draft AFFH | June 2022
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-1
AFFH Contents

1. Introduction and Overview .......................................................................................A-5

1.1 Approach to Analysis.........................................................................................................................................................A-5

1.2 Fair Housing Methodology.................................................................................................................................................A-6

2. Summary of Fair Housing Issues ...............................................................................A-9

2.1 Regional Trends .................................................................................................................................................................A-9

2.2 Local Trends.......................................................................................................................................................................A-9

2.3 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity................................................................................................................................A-10

3. Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends..................................................A-13

3.1 Race and Ethnicity ...........................................................................................................................................................A-13

3.2 Persons with Disabilities..................................................................................................................................................A-14

3.3 Familial Status .................................................................................................................................................................A-22

3.4 Household Income ...........................................................................................................................................................A-35

3.5 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ....................................................................................................A-42

3.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities..............................................................................................................................A-48

3.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs .....................................................................................................................................A-63

4. Local Area of Knowledge ........................................................................................A-83

4.1 Stakeholder Input.............................................................................................................................................................A-83

5. Sites Inventory Analysis ..........................................................................................A-85

5.1 Opportunity Areas............................................................................................................................................................A-85

5.2 Improved Conditions........................................................................................................................................................A-86

6. Contributing Factors ...............................................................................................A-89 Tables
Table 1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps..............................................................................................A-8 Table 2 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Napa County ...............................................................................................A-11 Table 3 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (Napa County)...................................................................................................A-14 Table 4 Household Type and Tenure (Napa County)...........................................................................................................A-22 Table 5 Household Type and Tenure (St. Helena) ...............................................................................................................A-25 Table 6 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (St. Helena) .........................................................................A-25 Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-2
Table 7 Housing Cost Burden of Lower-Income Households (2014-2018)..........................................................................A-72 Table 8 Substandard Housing Units (2019) ........................................................................................................................A-75 Table 9 Overcrowding by Tenure........................................................................................................................................A-77 Table 10 Proposed Sites Inventory Housing Unit Allocation .................................................................................................A-86 Table 11 Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues ......................................................................................................A-89 Figures
Figure 1 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Napa County) .........................................................................................A-16 Figure 2 Percent of Total Non-White Population (St. Helena)..............................................................................................A-17 Figure 3 Predominant Populations (St. Helena) ...................................................................................................................A-18 Figure 4 Percent of Population with a Disability (Napa County)..........................................................................................A-19 Figure 5 Disability by Type (St. Helena) ...............................................................................................................................A-20 Figure 6 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (St. Helena) ....................................................................A-21 Figure 7 Children in Married-Couple Households (Napa County) ........................................................................................A-27 Figure 8 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Napa County).........................................A-28 Figure 9 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (Napa County)...........................................................................A-29 Figure 10 Population of Adults Living Alone (Napa County)..................................................................................................A-30 Figure 11 Children in Married-Couple Households (St. Helena).............................................................................................A-31 Figure 12 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (St. Helena) .............................................A-32 Figure 13 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (St. Helena)................................................................................A-33 Figure 14 Population of Adults Living Alone (St. Helena) ......................................................................................................A-34 Figure 15 Median Household Income (2015-2019)................................................................................................................A-36 Figure 16 Median Household Income (Napa County) ............................................................................................................A-38 Figure 17 Low and Moderate Income Population (Napa County) ..........................................................................................A-39 Figure 18 Median Household Income (St. Helena).................................................................................................................A-40 Figure 19 Low to Moderate Income Population (St. Helena) .................................................................................................A-41 Figure 20 Areas of High Poverty (Napa County) ....................................................................................................................A-44 Figure 21 Poverty Status (St. Helena) ....................................................................................................................................A-45 Figure 22 Neighborhood Segregation (St. Helena).................................................................................................................A-46 Figure 23 Predominant White Population (Napa County)......................................................................................................A-50 Figure 24 Predominant Populations and Median Household Income (St. Helena) .................................................................A-51 Figure 25 Walkability Index (St. Helena)................................................................................................................................A-53 Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-3
Figure 26 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Napa County) ...........................................................................A-56 Figure 27 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (St. Helena)................................................................................A-57 Figure 28 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Napa County).............................................................................................A-59 Figure 29 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (St. Helena) .................................................................................................A-60 Figure 30 Job Proximity Index (St. Helena) ............................................................................................................................A-61 Figure 31 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Napa County) ...........................................................................................A-65 Figure 32 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (Napa County)........................................................................................A-66 Figure 33 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (St. Helena) ................................................................................................A-67 Figure 34 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (St. Helena) ............................................................................................A-68 Figure 35 Overpayment By Renters (Napa County)................................................................................................................A-69 Figure 36 Overpayment By Homeowners (Napa County).......................................................................................................A-70 Figure 37 Overpayment By Renters (St. Helena) ....................................................................................................................A-71 Figure 38 Overpayment By Homeowners (St. Helena) ...........................................................................................................A-74 Figure 39 Housing Stock Age (2015-2019) ............................................................................................................................A-75 Figure 40 Overcrowded Households (Napa County) ..............................................................................................................A-78 Figure 41 Overcrowded Households (St. Helena)...................................................................................................................A-79 Figure 42 Sensitive Communities (Napa County)...................................................................................................................A-81 Figure 43 Sensitive Communities (St. Helena) .......................................................................................................................A-82 Figure 44 Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race ...................................................................................................A-85 Figure 45 Location of Sites Inventory in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas...............................................................A-88 Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-4
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-5

1.Introduction
In 2018, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 686 to expand upon fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The law requires all State and local public agencies to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities. AB 686 created new requirements that apply to all housing elements due for revision on or after January 1, 2021. The passage of AB 686 protects the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing within State law.

AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH)” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.” AB 686 added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element which includes the following components:
• A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity
• An analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities • An assessment of contributing factors
• An identification of fair housing goals and actions.52

1.1 Approach to Analysis
This AFFH analysis is consistent with the 2021 California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (AFFH Guidance Memo) which provides guidance on the preparation of housing elements and ensures statutory requirements are satisfied, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(10).

This AFFH analysis evaluates fair housing issues on the following topics:

1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity

2. Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends

3. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty

4. Disparities in Access to Opportunity

5. Disproportionate Housing Needs
52 Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-6

6. Other Relevant Factors, including historical disinvestment, lack of infrastructure improvements, and presence of older affordable housing units that may be at risk of conversion to market-rate housing.

Fair housing priorities goals and actions are also provided specific to St. Helena to address as implementation actions for the Housing Element. The goals and actions address the major contributing factors for the topics above.

1.2 Fair Housing Methodology
The California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires cities and counties to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.

To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources, including:
• The Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer • AFFH Segregation Report by ABAG
• Napa Sonoma Collaborative
• Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
• U.S Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
• CalEnviroscreen
• California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
• The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) • US Census American Community Survey (ACS)
• AllTransit
• Walk Score
Additionally, the analysis includes input from sources of local knowledge, including special needs groups, housing advocacy organizations, housing and services providers, and residents.

1.2.1 Housing and Community Development’s AFFH Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer is a tool developed by HCD that features census block group and tract level data from an expansive collection of sources including ACS, HUD, TCAC, UDP, and CHAS. The Data Viewer tool serves as a resource for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing. The Data Viewer is Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-7
intended to assist in the creation of policies that alleviate disparities, combat discrimination, and increase access to safe and affordable homes.

1.2.2 AFFH Segregation Report
The University of California, Merced and STIR Labs, on behalf of ABAG, prepared reports for jurisdictions in California studying segregation patterns and current land use policies that correlate with patterns of racial segregation. The report for St. Helena addresses racial and income segregation using the racial isolation index, racial dissimilarity index, and Thiel’s H-Index at the neighborhood level within and regional level.

1.2.3 Napa Sonoma Collaborative
The Napa Sonoma Collaborative (NSC) is a collaboration between Napa and Sonoma Counties that aims to address housing challenges within the region. NSC is made up of housing staff from jurisdictions within Napa and Sonoma Counties and is working to raise awareness and increase participation in the Housing element Update process. The collaborative conducted outreach to gather information on fair housing issues within local communities and discuss constraints to affordable housing.

1.2.4 Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
The UDP was developed to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California. Indicators of gentrification and displacement are measured at the census tract level based on data from the 2015 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods. Additionally, census tracts identified as disadvantaged neighborhoods by UDP’s criteria are further analyzed to explore changes in the percentage of college educated residents, non-Hispanic White population, median household income, and median gross rents over time to determine levels of gentrification and displacement risk.

1.2.5 CalEnviroscreen
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed a screening methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. This tool, called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, if a community has a high score for that indicator, it is more impacted by pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities compared to other communities. Designated disadvantaged communities are those with CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher, meaning that they scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts across California.

1.2.6 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) • HCD and the TCAC created the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-8
state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals.53 The Task Force created the AFFH Data Viewer, an interactive mapping tool to assess population and housing characteristics related to fair housing and access to opportunity to aid in the development of policy for the promotion of equitable and inclusive communities. The data viewer includes Opportunity Maps made from composite scores of three different domains made up from a set of indicators data shown in Table 1. The Opportunity Maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty Status. Census tracts with at least 30 percent of population that earned an income that was below the federal poverty level.
• Racial Segregation. Census tracts with a location quotient that is higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asians, or all non-White populations in comparison to the county.

Table 1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, Adult Education, employment, Job proximity, median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values Education Math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, student poverty rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020

1.2.7 AllTransit
AllTransit is an online database that details transit opportunity for communities. The website explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. The AllTransit performance score explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, such as connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.

1.2.8 Walk Score
Walk Score provides walkability services and apartment search tools to addresses across the United States, with the mission “to promote walkable neighborhoods.” Walk Score measures walkability by assigning a numerical walkability score based on distance to amenities within a 30-minute walk and evaluates pedestrian friendliness by analyzing population density and road metrics, including block length and intersection density.
53Office of The State Treasurer (STO). 2021. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020-tcac-hcdmethodology.pdf Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-9

1.2.9 Community Engagement and Outreach
As part of the Housing Element Update, the City implemented a community engagement program, soliciting input from the general public, housing stakeholders, and City decision makers. Results and feedback obtained during the community engagement program have been incorporated into the Housing Element, including this section on affirmatively furthering fair housing practices. Please see Chapter 1 for more details on the City’s outreach efforts.

2.Summary of Fair Housing Issues
This summary guides the prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues and the creation of goals and actions to address these issues. Fair housing issues are conditions that restrict fair housing choice or access to opportunity in the geographic area of interest. Fair housing choice means realistic housing opportunities exist, can be accessed without discrimination towards protected characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex, disability, etc., and are informed with adequate information regarding options.

2.1 Regional Trends
Impediments to fair housing within Napa County, and the Bay Area as a whole, include the following:
• Residential segregation between White residents and non-White residents has increased in the last decade.
• Areas with higher percentages of non-White residents generally have less access to proficient schools, jobs, and cleaner air and water.
• Median rental prices rose an approximately $483 (unadjusted for inflation) since 2009, from $1,087 to $1,570, an increase of 44.4 percent in a 10-year period. • The average home value increased from approximately $319,926 to $768,414 in less than 20 years, from 2001 to 2020 (unadjusted for inflation). • Housing Choice Voucher holders and those with disabilities often find it difficult to find an appropriate housing unit based on located a unit of appropriate size and/or cost. • Disability, race, and familial status are the most common bases of housing discrimination complaints forwarded to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

2.2 Local Trends
Contributing factors identified as impediments to fair housing in St. Helena are discussed in detail below and include descriptions of how each impediment is addressed in this Housing Element.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-10

2.2.1 Concentrations of Lower- and Moderate-Income Earning Populations HUD defines a Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population earn an income that is considered lower or moderate relative to the area median income. In St. Helena, residents with low and moderate household incomes are concentrated in the eastern portion of the city. The Housing Element ensures available land to accommodate all income levels on sites located across the city. Efforts to combat this impediment are outlined in Programs HE-A, HE-B, HE-F, HE-G, HE-H, HE-L, HE-M, HE-O, HE-Q, HE-R, HE-U, and HE-JJ which focus on maintaining an inventory of sites suitable for residential development and prioritizes and incentivizes housing development for lower- and moderate-income residents in the western portion of the city.

2.2.2 Insufficient Housing Stock for Farmworkers
Farmworker housing is a critical need in Napa County and St. Helena due to the presence of year-round agricultural production. The migratory and sometimes seasonal nature of farm workers pose housing challenges for a community and are seen as an impediment for St. Helena as the City tries to house its entire population. Efforts to combat this impediment are outlined in Programs HE-E, HE-F, HE-G, HE-O, and HE-HH, which work to support regional and City farmworker housing efforts, including creating incentives and fast-tracking development for workforce/farmworker housing.

2.2.3 Lack of Affordable Housing Types
There is a lack of diversity in housing types that restricts development of affordable housing in St. Helena.

Local land use and zoning regulations perpetuate this deficiency by limiting the form of housing that can be developed on a particular site. Much of the residentially zoned parcels within the city are zoned low and moderate density residential and are not compatible with the construction of duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and multifamily housing developments. The City is upzoning a number of parcels as a part of the Housing Element Update to allow higher density residential development. Efforts to combat this impediment are outlined in Programs HE-A, HE-B, HE-E, HE-F, HE-G, HE-H, HE-L, HE-M, HE-N, HE-O, HEP, HE-Q, HE-Y, HE-AA, HE-BB, HE-CC, HE-DD, HE-FF, HE-II, and HE-JJ, which focus on maintaining an inventory of sites suitable for residential development, updating municipal code for developing workforce/farmworker housing, ADUs, housing for disabled and homeless persons, and non-traditional housing types, increasing development density, and fast-tracking housing development. Fair Housing Resources

2.3 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity is the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing agencies to distribute fair housing and tenants’ rights information to their community. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, resolving issues, and conducting fair housing testing.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-11

2.3.1 Regional Resources
Several organizations in Napa County provide aid for fair housing issues and outreach. Table 2 shows organizations and agencies that collaborate with local governments, including St. Helena to address housing and community needs and provide the following services:
• Housing Need Assessment
• Homelessness Needs
• Market Analysis
• Fair housing testing and complaints
• Fair housing counseling and education
• Tenant/landlord counseling and mediation
• Homeless prevention program
• Rental assistance program
• Rent/deposit grant program
• Home seeking services
• Shared housing counseling placement
• Homebuyers’ education learning program
Table 2 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Napa County Organization URL Phone Number
Abode Services https://www.abodeservices.org/napa-county (510) 657-7409 Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA) https://baylegal.org/ (800) 551-554 CA Department of Fair Employment and
Housing https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/ (800) 884-1684
EAH Housing https://www.eahhousing.org/
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern
California (FHANC) https://www.fairhousingnorcal.org/ (415) 457-5025 Fair Housing Napa Valley (FHNV) https://napafairhousing.org/ (707) 224-9720 Napa Continuum of Care https://homelessnapa.com/
Napa County Housing and Homeless
Services Division
https://www.countyofnapa.org/272/HomelessServices (707) 271-7818 Napa Valley Community Housing https://nvch.org/ (707) 253-6140 North Bay Housing Coalition https://www.northbayhousingcoalition.org/ (707) 289-7000 Source: City of Napa AI, 2020; Napa Sonoma Collaborative Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity and Resources, 2022
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-12

2.3.2 Local Resources
The City of St. Helena contracts with the non-profit organization Fair Housing Napa Valley (FHNV), a regional non-profit fair housing agency, to assist residents with fair housing counseling services, connections to rental assistance and homelessness prevention programs, and to conduct fair housing testing. FHNV assists residents and landlords throughout the city, providing mediation, investigation, and referral services. In addition to the fair housing services provided by active organizations, the Napa County Housing Authority administers the Housing Choice Voucher program for St. Helena and other jurisdictions in the county.

2.3.2.1 Ability to Address Complaints
The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division initiated fair housing testing in 1991. This is a technique used to uncover evidence of discrimination in rental housing. Fair housing testing involves one or more individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, State, and federal fair housing laws. Enforcement actions may be taken when investigations yield evidence of a pattern or practice of illegal housing discrimination. Testing may be initiated following the filing of a specific housing discrimination complaint or, as is the case when testing for disability discrimination, as part of an overall effort to determine whether the design or architectural features of a specific rental facility comply with state and federal accessibility requirements. In Napa County, fair housing testing is used to identify unlawful housing discrimination practices based on the real or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender identity or expression, national origin, disability, familial status, marital status, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, and source of income of prospective renters. Fair Housing Napa Valley conducts fair housing testing of rental properties to assess how well rental properties are conforming to fair housing laws, assists residents in filing fair housing complaints, provides education and technical assistance to housing providers, and provide conciliation services for tenants and landlords.

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) maintains a record of housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. From 2015 - 2019, 256 fair housing complaints originating in Napa County were filed with DFEH. Overall, disability-related discrimination comprised the largest proportion of cases (56 percent). The next highest basis for discrimination were race and familiar status, comprising nearly 8 percent each. According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, no fair housing inquiries for the City of St.

Helena were received between 2013 and 2021. Fair housing inquiries are comments or questions related to fair housing received by HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), not formal discrimination complaints. The lack of inquiries is low for the region, as seen when compared to the cities of Santa Rosa (received 61), Sonoma (received 8), and Napa (received 33).

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-13

3.Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends. Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability in a specific geographic area. Segregation generally means the opposite condition, in which there is a high concentration of the characteristics described above in a specific geographic area. To adequately assess the patterns of integration and segregation, this section identifies trends at the regional scale (Napa County) and at the local scale (St. Helena).

3.1 Race and Ethnicity
The ethnic and racial composition of a community relates to other housing characteristics including household size, locational preference, and economic opportunity. Additionally, race/ethnicity is a known contributor to unfair housing practices. Historical patterns of racial/ethnic segregation were results of governmental policies from the federal to local level that promoted exclusionary actions and disparate treatment of people of color such as redlining, racially restrictive covenants, and mortgage lending practices. The existence of concentrations of minorities living in one location may be an indicator that some minority groups do not have as many housing choices as non-minority residents.

3.1.1 Regional Trends
Regionally, the urbanized areas of Napa County are more diverse, with a minimum of 40 percent of the population consisting of non-White residents, as demonstrated in the geographic depiction of 2014-2018 ACS data shown in Figure 1. Comparatively, populations in the less urbanized and less densely populated areas of Napa County are generally more predominantly White with populations consisting of about 60 percent or greater of White residents.

HUD utilizes the racial/ethnic dissimilarity index as a measure of segregation. The racial/ethnic dissimilarity index represents the extent of which any two racial/ethnic groups differ across a defined geographical area.

The index ranges from 0-100, where 0 represents perfect integration between the two racial/ethnic groups and 100 representing perfect segregation. An index value below 40 is generally considered low segregation, a value between 40 and 54 is considered a moderate level of segregation, and a value above 55 is a high level of segregation.54 Racial/ethnic segregation in Napa County slightly increased between 2010 and 2019. Table 3 shows racial/ethnic segregation in Napa County using the dissimilarity index using data from HUD’s AFFH mapping tool. Black and Asian/Pacific Islander residents are the most segregated compared to other racial and ethnic groups. Segregation between Black and White residents and between Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents is high, since their racial dissimilarity index scores are above 55 for 2019. Segregation between Non-White and White residents and between Hispanic and White residents 54HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-14
is considered low, since their racial dissimilarity index scores are below 40 for 2019. In Napa County, there has been an increase in segregation across all measured racial/ethnic groups between 2010 and 2019.

Table 3 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (Napa County) Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 2000 2010 2019
Non-White/White 19.58 26.18 31.24 36.84
Black/White 56.22 52.61 58.76 67.86
Hispanic/White 21.86 28.94 30.13 35.61
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 37.11 38.97 57.35 64.47 Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Mapping Tool – Table 3, Version AFFHT0006, 2022

3.1.2 Local Trends
St. Helena is more diverse compared to rural areas of Napa County, which are predominantly White, and less diverse than the cities of Napa and American Canyon. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, White residents comprise the largest racial/ethnic group in St. Helena, followed by Hispanic/Latino residents. The predominant population throughout the entire city is White, as shown in Figure 3. The northwest area of the city has the highest predominance of White residents, although the southeast area of the city is predominantly White as well. The eastern areas of the city have the largest non-White populations, as shown in Figure 3.

3.2 Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities include those with a physical or mental impairment including hearing, vision, mobility, cognitive function. For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity include access to accessible housing and housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s needs as required under federal civil rights law, including equitably provided disability-related services that an individual needs to live in such housing. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have actual housing choice without the presence of housing units with these accessibility features.55
High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to both physical needs and economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureau-designated poverty line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.56 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit. 55 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 56 The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics. 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-15

3.2.1.1 Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, a total of 16,244 Napa County residents had one or more disabilities, which represents approximately 11.8 percent of the county’s total population. Figure 4 shows the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities throughout Napa County. The western areas of the county, which includes the urban areas of the cities, have higher concentrations of persons living with one or more disabilities compared to the eastern areas of the county. The southeastern area of the City of Napa has the highest concentration of persons living with one or more disabilities in the county.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-16
Figure 1 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-17
Figure 2 Percent of Total Non-White Population (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-18
Figure 3 Predominant Populations (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-19
Figure 4 Percent of Population with a Disability (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-20

3.2.2 Local Trends
The 2015-2019 ACS estimated a total of 726 residents in St. Helena were living with one or more disabilities, which is approximately 11.9 percent of the total population. Of the 726 individuals living with a one or more disabilities, 466 (64.2 percent) are age 65 or older. The most common type of disability in St.

Helena is ambulatory difficulty, defined as those who have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, as shown in
Figure 5. Persons with ambulatory disability have specific housing needs and may require housing that is wheelchair accessible or lacks stairs or steps.

Figure 5 Disability by Type (St. Helena)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.

Figure 6 highlights the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities in the city by census tract. The southeastern parts of the city, east of Spring Street and Pope Street, have higher concentrations of residents with one or more disabilities (between 10 and 20 percent living with at least one disability).

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-21
Figure 6 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-22

3.3 Familial Status
Familial status refers to families with children under the age of 18, including those with legal custody of a child, pregnant persons, and those in the process of adopting or gaining legal custody. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords, including being denied housing due to the presence of children or being subject to special restrictions or fees. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining children to a specific location or unit are also fair housing concerns. In a 2016 housing discrimination study, researchers found that compared to households without children, households with children were shown slightly fewer units and were commonly told about units that were slightly larger, and as a result, slightly more expensive to rent.57 Additionally, female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of generally greater needs for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

3.3.1 Regional Trends
Most households in Napa County are family households, comprising approximately 68 percent of the total 48,705 households in the county. Households with children present comprise 28.1 percent (13,699 households) of the total households or 41.4 percent of all family households in the county. Married couples without children represent 46.9 percent of family households. The majority of family households with children are married couple households with fewer numbers of female and male single parent households.

Single-parent households are more often at risk for housing issues because they rely on a single income and may require access to affordable childcare. Table 4 shows a breakdown of household type by tenure (owned versus rented) and presence of children in Napa County. Single-parent households are more likely to rent than own, especially female, single-parent households. There are 1,008 single-parent households that own and 2,323 single-parent households that rent in Napa County.

Table 4 Household Type and Tenure (Napa County)
Household Type
OwnerOccupied
Percent of Total
OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupied
Percent of Total
RenterOccupied
Married Couple Family, with
Children Present 6,257 20.0% 4,036 23.2%
Single-Parent, Male Householder, no
Spouse Present 383 1.2% 577 3.3%
Single Parent, Female Householder,
No Spouse Present 700 2.2% 1,746 10.0%
Total Households with Children
Present 7,340 23.5% 6,359 36.5%
Total Households 31,276 100% 17,429 100%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates. 57 HUD. 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-23
Figure 7 shows the percentage of children in married couple households in Napa County. The less urban areas of the county have higher concentrations of children residing in married couple households while the urban areas have a lower percentage of children residing in married couple households. In most areas of the county the majority of children live in married couple households, however the northern half of the county generally has a higher percentage of children living in married couple households compared to the southern half.

Figure 8 shows the estimated percentage of children in households with a female head of household with no spouse or partner. Urban areas of the county, especially areas of the City of Napa and Town of Yountville, have higher concentrations of children in female single-parent households with between 20 and 40 percent of family households headed by a single parent female. The southern area of the City of Napa has the highest concentration of children in households with a female head of household with no spouse or partner, with between 40 and 60 percent of families headed by a single parent female. Less urban areas of the county, outside of incorporated cities, have less than 20 percent of families headed by a single female.

Figure 9 shows the percentage of adults living with a spouse or partner in Napa County. In most areas of the county 40 to 60 percent of adults are living with a spouse/partner. In areas in the southeast portion of the county, and on the west side of the City of Napa, there is a higher concentration of adults living with a spouse/partner, consisting of approximately 60 to 80 percent of adults.

Figure 10 shows the percentage of adults living alone, with less than 20 percent adults living alone in most areas in Napa County. In several of the more urban areas, specifically portions of the City of Napa, Yountville, and St. Helena, there is a higher concentration of adults living alone (greater than 20 percent).

3.3.2 Local Trends
Approximately 58 percent of the total 2,702 households in St. Helena are family households, as shown in Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-24
Table 5. The majority of families are married couple families with more renters than homeowners. However, more single-parent households own their home than rent. Table 6 shows the breakdown of families with children by tenure and household type.

Non-family households are the second most common household type; a total of 42 percent of households fall into this category. These are primarily individuals living alone. Female single parent families make up about 10 percent of both owner-occupied units and rented units. Compared to the entire county, St. Helena has a greater percentage of non-family households, especially those living alone.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-25
Table 5 Household Type and Tenure (St. Helena)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table S2501 Occupancy Characteristics, 2015-2019 Estimates.

Table 6 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (St. Helena) Household Type
OwnerOccupied
Percent of Total
OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupied
Percent of Total
RenterOccupied
Married Couple Family, with
Children Present 164 10.3% 230 20.7%
Single-Parent, Male Householder, no
Spouse Present 17 1.1% 11 0.1%
Single Parent, Female Householder,
No Spouse Present 114 7.2% 50 4.5%
Total Households with Children
Present 295 18.6% 291 26.2%
Total Households 1,590 100% 1,112 100%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates.

The majority of children in St. Helena live in married couple households; however this percentage is less than in rural areas of Napa County. Figure 11 shows the percentage of children in married couple households in St. Helena is between 60 and 80 percent, while more than 80 percent of children in the surrounding rural areas live in married couple households.

Figure 12 shows the percentage of children in female single-parent households in St. Helena. In the northwest areas of St. Helena, approximately 20 to 40 percent of children live in female single-parent households. In the southeast areas of the city less than 20 percent of children live in female single-parent households.

Household Type Owner-Occupied
Percent of Total
Owner-Occupied
RenterOccupiedPercent of Total
Renter-Occupied
Family
Households 920 58 586 53
Married couple family 735 46 408 37
Male householder, no
spouse present 29 2 63 6
Female householder, no
spouse present 156 10 115 10
Non-family
households 670 42 526 47
Living Alone 644 41 395 36
Not Living Alone 26 2 131 12
Total Households 1,590 1,112
Agenda Item #6.1.