City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-26
Figure 13 provides estimates regarding the percent of the adult population living with a spouse in St.
Helena. Throughout the city, approximately 40 to 60 percent of adults are living with a spouse. Figure 14 shows the percentage of the adult population living alone in St. Helena. In the western half of the city, 20 to 40 percent of adults live alone while in the eastern half of the city less than 20 percent of adults live alone.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-27
Figure 7 Children in Married-Couple Households (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-28
Figure 8 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (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-29
Figure 9 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (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-30
Figure 10 Population of Adults Living Alone (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-31
Figure 11 Children in Married-Couple Households (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-32
Figure 12 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (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-33
Figure 13 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (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-34
Figure 14 Population of Adults Living Alone (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-35
Overall, the northwest portion of the city has a higher proportion of children living in female single-parent households and a higher proportion of adults living alone compared to the southeast portion of the city.
The percentages of children living in married couple households and adults living in with a spouse/partner are high throughout the city.
3.4 Household Income
Household income is directly related to the ability to afford housing. Higher income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. However, as household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases. To achieve fair housing objectives, people in low-income households must have actual choice in housing opportunities – that is, they are able to locate units that are affordable and well maintained in all parts of a jurisdiction and region.
Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the area median income).
3.4.1 Regional Trends
The median household income of Napa County is $88,596. LMI areas are concentrated in the more urbanized areas of the county, including the City of Napa, St. Helena, and Calistoga. Rural areas of the county tend to have higher income households. Figure 15 shows the median household income for cities within Napa County.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-36
Figure 15 Median Household Income (2015-2019)
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
Figure 16 shows median household income by block group using 2015-2019 ACS estimates. Block groups with the lowest median income are the eastern area of St. Helena, the area south of Yountville, and areas within the City of Napa.
LMI populations by census tract for Napa County are displayed in Figure 17. Census tracts within Cities of Napa, St. Helena, and Calistoga have the highest percentages of populations with low to moderate income.
These areas are the same areas with the highest percentages of non-White population.
3.4.2 Local Trends
Household incomes in St. Helena tend to be higher than the region as a whole, with a median income of $90,031 compared to the median household income of Napa County ($88,596). St. Helena has a higher median income than many of the surrounding cities, including the cities of Napa, Yountville, and Calistoga, as shown in Figure 15.
Figure 18 provides an overview of median household income by block group in the city. The census blocks with the lowest median income are located on the northeast and east side of St. Helena with median incomes of $47,083 and $51,544, which is less than the state median income of $87,100. Community input identified that many of the property owners in this area are not lower income and are in fact very wealthy.
The low-medium income trends in this area of the city may partially be attributed to the three affordable housing developments (Stonebridge Apartments, Woodbridge Village Apartments, and Hunt’s Grove $-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
American
Canyon
Angwin Calistoga Deer Park Moskowite
Corner
Napa Oakville Rutherford St. Helena Yountville
Median Household Income Average
$101,792
$72,625
$67,119
$89,500
$61,875
$88,596
$99,375
$90,031
$69,300
$84,043
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-37
Apartments), Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park, and a senior living community (Silverado Orchards Retirement Community) all located within these two census blocks. The census block with the highest median income is located in the downtown area in the center of the city with a median income of $158,500. The AFFH Data Viewer has no information on median income of the northwest area of St.
Helena.
The LMI populations in St. Helena are concentrated on the east side of the city, as shown in Figure 19.
According to HUD estimates, in the eastern area of the city 68 percent of the population are LMI populations. In contrast, on western side of city less than 20 percent of the population is LMI. This pattern closely corresponds with areas of the city that have a greater non-White population concentration, which is also greater on the eastern side of the city.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-38
Figure 16 Median Household Income (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-39
Figure 17 Low and Moderate Income 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-40
Figure 18 Median Household Income (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-41
Figure 19 Low to Moderate Income 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-42
3.5 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty To identify racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (known as R/ECAPs), HUD developed thresholds based on racial and ethnic concentration and income level. The threshold for racial and ethnic concentration is a non-White population of 50 percent or more within metropolitan or micropolitan areas (in rural areas it is 20 percent). Areas of “extreme poverty” are defined using the poverty test as those with more than 40 percent of the population at or below the poverty line or a poverty rate or three times the average of the metropolitan area, whichever is less. Areas that meet both the racial/ethnic concentration threshold and the “extreme poverty” threshold are considered R/ECAPs.
3.5.1 Poverty and Segregation
3.5.1.1 Regional Trends
There are no R/ECAPs within Napa County, however there is a small area of in the southern portion of the City of Napa that would be considered an area of extreme poverty with more than 40 percent of the population below the poverty line. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately 8 percent of the population of Napa County are below the poverty level. Several areas within county have 10 and 20 percent of the population below the poverty line, including areas in the southern region of the county, in and around the Cities of Napa, American Canyon, and St. Helena. Figure 20 shows the poverty status within Napa County.
3.5.1.2 Local Trends
St. Helena does not have any R/ECAPs. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately 8 percent of the population of St. Helena are living below the poverty level, consistent with poverty rates of Napa County. The western half of the city has a greater percentage of the population below the poverty line, between 10 and 20 percent. This area also had a higher percentage of children in a female single parent household.
Figure 21 displays the percentage of the population whose income is below the poverty line in St. Helena.
The poverty rates in St. Helena have shifted over time. The 2010-2014 ACS estimated the eastern half of the city had a greater percentage of the population below the poverty line, opposite of the trend shown by the 2015-2019 ACS estimates.
Figure 22 shows neighborhood segregation in St. Helena using to data from UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project (UDP). According to the UDP the predominant racial/ethnic composition in St. Helena is Latinx-White. ABAG’s Segregation Report also analyzed neighborhood segregation in St. Helena between 2010 and 2020 using the racial isolation index, racial dissimilarity index, and Thiel’s H-Index. The isolation index showed White residents are the most segregated racial group in the city, followed by Latinx residents. The dissimilarity index showed segregation is greatest between Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents, followed by Latinx and White residents. However, the dissimilarity index is an unreliable measure for Asian/Pacific Islander and Black/African populations in St. Helena because their populations are too Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-43
small for accurate calculation. Thiel’s H-index for neighborhood level segregation indicated racial segregation between all racial groups within the city is less than in the average Bay Area jurisdiction.
Compared to all Bay Area jurisdictions, St. Helena is less diverse, with a smaller percentage of the population consisting of people of color.
ABAG’s Segregation Report also analyzed neighborhood level income segregation between 2010 and 2015 in St. Helena using the income group isolation index, income group dissimilarity index, and Thiel’s H-index.
The isolation index showed above moderate income residents are the most segregated income group in the city followed by very low income residents. Among all income groups, segregation of the moderate income population has changed the most between 2010 and 2015, becoming less segregated. The dissimilarity index showed income segregation is greater in St. Helena than in the average Bay Area jurisdiction between lower income residents and non-lower income residents and between very low income residents and above moderate income residents. Overall, segregation between lower income residents and residents who are not lower income increased between 2010 and 2015. According to Thiel’s H-index for neighborhood level income segregation, income segregation in the city is less than the average Bay Area city and remained about the same between 2010 and 2015. Compared to all Bay Area jurisdictions, St.
Helena has a similar share of very low income residents, lower share of low and moderate income residents, and a higher share of above moderate income residents.
In summary, ABAG’s segregation report found White residents and above moderate income residents are the largest and most segregated racial and income groups in St. Helena.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-44
Figure 20 Areas of High Poverty (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-45
Figure 21 Poverty Status (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-46
Figure 22 Neighborhood Segregation (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-47
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-48
3.5.2 Concentrated Areas of Affluence
While racially R/ECAPs have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed. Racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) are affluent communities that are predominantly White.58 According to a policy paper published by HUD, White residents are the most racially segregated group in the United States and are typically more affluent than majority non-White communities. RCAAs have not been studied extensively, nor has a standard definition been published by HCD or HUD. Therefore, this assessment uses the percent White population and median household income as thresholds to identify potential RCAAs. In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence experience less overcrowding, less housing cost burden on renters, and are generally less susceptible to displacement compared to LMI areas.
3.5.3 Regional Trends
The population of Napa County is predominantly White, with the highest concentration of White residents residing in rural areas of the county. Figure 23 highlights the predominantly White census tracts in Napa County. Areas with a lower concentration of White residents are generally located within the valley where population density is higher. The more rural areas along the eastern boarder of Napa County have high concentrations of White populations, which corresponds with areas that have the highest median incomes in the county.
3.5.4 Local Trends
Similar to patterns of affluence throughout Napa County, areas of St. Helena with higher median incomes correspond to areas with higher proportions of White residents. The northwestern area of the city has a larger proportion of White residents and a higher median income, while the southeastern area has greater racial/ethnic diversity and a lower median income. The northwestern area of the city has a predominant White population (over 50 percent) and the southeastern area of the city has a large White population and large Hispanic population (approximately 48 percent each). Figure 24 shows the overlap of high median income and predominant White population in St. Helena.
In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence in St. Helena experience lower percentages of overpayment by homeowners, more positive economic outcomes, and more positive environmental outcomes compared to LMI areas.
3.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
According to HCD guidance, land use policies and planning often translate into the ability of residents to access neighborhoods of opportunity, with high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs that afford entry to the middle class, and convenient access to transit and services. The limits on housing choice and 58 Goatz, Damanio and Williams, “Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation” https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol21num1/ch4.pdf, (2019).
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-49
access experienced by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability, have far-reaching impacts on access to job opportunity, quality education, and mental and physical health.59 Access to opportunity often means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food, and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).
The analysis of place-based characteristics linked to opportunity indicators, quality education, employment, transportation, and healthy environment, seeks to understand the disparity between communities in terms of access to real and potential economic benefits and quality of life.
3.6.1 Transit Access
Reliable access to public transit is crucial, especially for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities, to provide connections to employment opportunities. Access to employment via public transit can reduce income burden and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing in more areas.60 The lack of a relationship between public transit, employment opportunities, and affordable housing may impede fair housing choice. Persons who depend on public transit may have limited choices regarding places to live.
3.6.2 Regional Trends
As Napa County is largely rural, residents mainly depend on their personal vehicles for commuting and traveling. Public transit options do exist in Napa County, primarily Vine Transit, a fixed route bus service operated by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority. Vine Transit operates fixed bus route service throughout the county from American Canyon to Calistoga and provides connections to the Vallejo Ferry Terminal, and El Cerrito Del Norte BART station, SolTrans stations in Vallejo and Fairfield, and the Suisun/Fairfield Train Station. Lake Transit Authority connects southern areas of Lake County to northern Napa County, with bus stops in Calistoga, St. Helena, and Deer Park. Additionally, several low cost, on demand shuttle services are available to the public providing fixed route and door-to-door transit within the city limits of their operating city, including the Yountville Trolley, St. Helena Shuttle, Calistoga Shuttle, and American Canyon Transit. Residents and visitors with physical and/or cognitive disabilities may be eligible to participate in VineGo Paratransit Service, a shared ride service providing curb-to-curb transportation. VineGo offers rides within and between cities throughout the county as well as to Kaiser Vallejo Medical Center.
59 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 60 Ong, Paul and Evelyn Blumenberg, “Job Accessibility and Welfare Usage: Evidence from Los Angeles.” UCLA Department of Policy Studies, (1998).
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-50
Figure 23 Predominant 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-51
Figure 24 Predominant Populations and Median Household Income (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-52
The Commuter Bike Path (Vine Trail) runs parallel to the Napa Valley Railroad and provides an off-street route walking/biking path for recreation and commuting. Ultimately the Vine Trail will cover 47 miles from Vallejo to Calistoga. Currently 12.5 miles of the path has been completed from Kennedy Park in the City of Napa to Yountville.
AllTransit is an online database that provides details on transit opportunity throughout the United States, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. Napa County received an AllTransit performance score of 3.3 which equates to a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit.61 Approximately 1.5 percent of commuters use public transit in Napa County. The cities of Napa (4.6), Yountville (4.6), and Calistoga (4.0) have the highest scores with a slighter greater combination of number of trips per week, accessible jobs, and available transit routes.
3.6.3 Local Trends
The City of St. Helena has an AllTransit performance score of 2.4 with approximately 1.0 percent of workers who commute using public transit. This score is lower than the County score of 3.3. One Vine Transit bus route passes through St. Helena, providing connections to the City of Calistoga to the north and City of Napa to the south. Additionally, the St. Helena Shuttle Service provides both a fixed route and an ondemand, door-to-door transit service option within the city limits.
Walk Score is a tool that produces a walkability index by assigning a numerical walkability score to cities and neighborhoods. Walkability is measured by analyzing population density, distance to amenities, and road metrics such as block length and intersection density. St. Helena has a walk score of 83, which is considered very walkable, and most errands can be accomplished by foot62. St. Helena’s walkability score is most negatively affected by the limited number of parks within walking distance from different areas of the city.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has a walkability index, which ranks block groups according to their relative walkability. The EPA walkability map, shown in Figure 25, shows that walkability varies across the city. The highest walkability scores are in downtown and along Main Street where most of the commercial areas are concentrated. Further from downtown and in the western and eastern parts of the city, walkability scores are below average.
61 https://alltransit.cnt.org/
62 https://www.walkscore.com/
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-53
Figure 25 Walkability Index (St. Helena)
Source: National Walkability Index, 2022
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-54
3.6.4 Access to Quality Education
Economics literature has consistently found about a 10 percent increase in wages/salary with each additional year of education.63 Educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. TCAC education domain scores, which are used to identify areas of higher or lower education opportunities, incorporate a variety of indicators including math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates and student poverty rates to assess educational outcomes at the census tract level.
3.6.5 Regional Trends
Napa County is served by five school districts: Napa Valley Unified School District, St. Helena Unified School District, Calistoga Joint Unified School District, Howell Mountain School District, and Pope Valley School District. An overview of education outcomes across the Napa County is illustrated in Figure 26 which shows the TCAC Opportunity Areas map. Education outcomes vary throughout the county. Areas in the western portion of the county and portions of the more urban areas have more positive education outcomes compared to eastern portions of the county and southern parts of the City of Napa.
3.6.6 Local Trends
The City of St. Helena is served by the St. Helena Unified School District which is comprised of four schools:
a primary school, elementary school, middle school, and high school. Altogether, approximately 1,243 students were enrolled in 2020 from the City St. Helena and the surrounding areas. Approximately 45 percent of students were White and 52 percent were Hispanic/Latino. St. Helena Unified School District reported a high school graduation rate of 92.9 percent in 2020, 90.1 percent in 2019, and 94.1 percent in 2018. The district reported all students who did not receive high school diplomas in 2019 were Long Term English Learners and socio-economically disadvantaged students.64 Figure 27Figure 26 shows TCAC scores for education outcomes for St. Helena at the census tract level. St.
Helena has better education outcomes than other areas of Napa County. At the city level, the southern and eastern areas of the city have better education outcomes than the western areas.
3.6.7 Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic opportunities. Access to high quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times.
The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data from the ACS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC), and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.
63 The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics. 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
64 St. Helena Unified School District 2021-22 Local Control and Accountability Plan https://www.sthelenaunified.org/cms/lib/CA50000465/Centricity/Domain/36/LCAP%20Control%20Accountability%20Plan %202021%202022.pdf
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-55
TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract. They consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. The MTC EPC identifies concentrations of underserved populations in order to direct funding for housing and transportation equity. The HUD Jobs Proximity Index assesses the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-56
Figure 26 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (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-57
Figure 27 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (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-58
3.6.8 Regional Trends
According to the California Employment Development Department, the unemployment rate of Napa County was 3.9 percent in February 2022 (not seasonally adjusted). Top employers in the county include manufacturing (including large- and small-scale wine manufacturing), healthcare, and accommodation and food service. The 2015-2019 ACS estimates reported 74,549 workers in the County of Napa with a labor force participation rate of 65 percent of persons 16 years and older. Approximately 33.7 percent of workers commute 30 or more minutes to work with a countywide mean commute time of 25.6 minutes.
Figure 28 shows the TCAC Opportunity Areas map for economic outcomes across the county. Economic outcomes are varied with more positive outcomes generally located in the western areas of the county and less positive outcomes in the eastern areas of the county. This trend may be attributed to the high concentration of vineyards and wineries in the western and central areas of the county and low population density in eastern areas of the county.
3.6.9 Local Trends
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS), there are 3,159 persons in the labor force in St. Helena with a labor force participation rate of 61 percent. The California Employment Development Department reported the unemployment rate was 3.1 percent in December 2021 (not seasonally adjusted), slightly less than the county. Top industries in the city reflect county trends, with the highest number of workers in manufacturing, healthcare, and accommodation and food service.
Figure 29 shows the TCAC Opportunity Areas map for economic outcomes in St. Helena. Much like the county, economic outcomes are varied across the city. Western areas of the city have more positive economic outcomes and eastern areas have less positive economic outcomes. This pattern of lower economic outcomes in the eastern areas of the city reflects the lower median incomes and greater ethnic diversity that is also experienced in these areas. The eastern areas of the city contain affordable housing developments, a mobile home park, and senior living community which may be contributing to lower median incomes and lower median home values.
ACS 2015-2019 estimates show approximately 22.4 percent of workers commute 30 or more minutes to work and the mean commute time is 19.6 minutes. Figure 30 shows the job proximity index in St. Helena which assesses the accessibility of employment opportunities based on distance, a higher index score corresponds to closer job proximity. Job proximity throughout St. Helena is consistently high (closest proximity), especially when compared to the southern and eastern areas of the county.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-59
Figure 28 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (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-60
Figure 29 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (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-61
Figure 30 Job Proximity Index (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-62
3.6.10 Healthy Environment
Access to a healthy environment is necessary for communities within a city to thrive. Healthy environment analysis considers patterns in the disparities found within individual neighborhoods and protected area groups. These disparities can vary in a number of categories, including air quality, water quality, safe neighborhood, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. Recent California laws, AB 1550, Senate Bill (SB) 535 and SB 1000 emphasize the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue. Environmental Justice, as defined by HUD, means ensuring the environment and human health are protected fairly for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, and consideration the means by which federally assisted projects may have disproportionately adversely affect human health or the environmental on minority and low income populations.65 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution called. High scoring census tracts tend to be more burdened by pollution from multiple sources and are most vulnerable to its effects, taking into account their socioeconomic characteristics and underlying health status.
3.6.11 Regional Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Napa County identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. Figure 31 below shows the pollution burden for Napa County, representing the potential exposure to pollutants and resulting adverse environmental conditions. The more urban areas on the western side of the county have a higher pollution burden, especially within and to the south of the City of Napa. Figure 32 shows TCAC Opportunity Map for environmental outcomes in the county. Similar to the CalEnviroScreen map, the TCAC Opportunity Map shows that the western areas of the county have less positive environmental outcomes compared to the eastern areas of the county. This may be caused by the mountains flank the valley which block wind flow and trap pollution. Additionally, the western and central areas of the county have a higher concentration of people, traffic, and agriculture which produces greater levels of pollution and pesticides. Eastern areas of the county tend to be forested and are less populated
3.6.12 Local Trends
Pollution Burden in St. Helena is lower than many other areas in the county, as shown in Figure 33.
However, the eastern areas of the city have a slightly higher pollution burden (overall score of 40) compared to the rest of the city, with high burdens of pesticides, cleanups, and groundwater threats. The western areas have a slightly lower burden (overall score of 33) with high burdens of pesticides, cleanups, groundwater threats, and solid waste. Pesticide use is considered high throughout the city likely due to pesticide applications on nearby vineyards. There are two cleanup sites located within the city including one site with an active dry-cleaning business and one site with a manufactured gas plant that was dismantled in 1930. These two cleanup sites are also sources that pose groundwater threats to the city. A 65 HUD, 2021. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/ Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-63
third cleanup site is located outside the city limits, southeast of the city, with a food market that has detected high pesticides in the soil beneath the building. A solid waste facility is located in the eastern area of the city which may potentially expose neighboring communities to environmental burdens such as odor, pests, and truck traffic. The southern and eastern areas of the city have a higher pollution burden, which corresponds with areas with higher ethnic diversity, higher populations with a disability, and lower median incomes discussed in the previous sections.
Figure 34 shows the TCAC Opportunity map for environmental outcomes in the City of St. Helena. The southern and eastern areas of the city have less positive environmental outcomes compared to the western areas.
3.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions
3.7.1 Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered cost burdened, and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered severely cost burdened. The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low-income households and persons in protected classes disproportionately experience severe housing problems. Housing problems are households that has one or more of the following problems: lacks a complete kitchen facility, lacks complete plumbing facility, a household that is overcrowded, or a household that is cost burdened.
3.7.2 Regional Trends
Figure 35 shows areas of Napa County where renter households overpay for housing (spend more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs). Overpayment by renters is a widespread issue across the county, especially in the more urban areas of the county as well as the northeast and southeast areas of the county. Similar to overpayment by renters, overpayment by homeowners is common throughout the county, highlighting that the costs of housing are too high for both renters and homeowners. Figure 36 shows areas of the county where homeowners overpay for housing, which is most prevalent in the urban areas of the county as well as the northwest and southeast areas of the county.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-64
3.7.3 Local Trends
Housing cost burden among renters is widespread in St. Helena. Figure 37 shows that 40 to 60 percent of renters overpay for housing in all areas of the city. Additionally, data from HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) indicates lower income households are disproportionately overpaying for housing.
Lower-income households experience higher cost burden than moderate income and above households in St. Helena. Approximately 41 percent of extremely low-income households (those earning 30 percent or less of the local area median income (AMI)) are considered severely cost burdened (spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing). Both renters and owners experience cost burden in St. Helena, with higher proportions of lower income households spending greater than 30 percent or 50 percent on housing.
Table 7 shows housing cost burden of lower income households in St. Helena. Generally, a higher percentage of renters than owners experience cost burden, however, more owners than renters experience severe cost burden.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-65
Figure 31 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Napa County) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2022
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-66
Figure 32 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (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-67
Figure 33 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (St. Helena) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2022
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-68
Figure 34 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (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-69
Figure 35 Overpayment By Renters (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-70
Figure 36 Overpayment By Homeowners (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-71
Figure 37 Overpayment By Renters (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-72
Table 7 Housing Cost Burden of Lower-Income Households (2014-2018) Household by Type,
Income, and Housing
Problem Renters Percent Owners Percent
Total
Household
s
Extremely LowIncome
(0-30 % AMI)
185 160 345
With Cost Burden
>30% 100 54.1% 105 65.6% 205 59.4%
With Cost Burden
>50% 50 27.0% 90 56.3% 140 40.6%
Very Low-Income
(0-30 % AMI) 240 105 345 %
With Cost Burden
>30% 195 81.3% 70 66.7% 265 76.8%
With Cost Burden
>50% 35 14.6% 40 38.1% 75 21.7%
Low-Income
(51-80 % AMI) 145 160 305 %
With Cost Burden
>30% 100 69.0% 85 53.1% 185 60.7%
With Cost Burden
>50% 40 27.6% 60 37.5% 100 32.8%
Moderate & Above
Income
(>80% AMI)
500 1,105 1,605 %
With Cost Burden
>30% 133 26.6% 205 18.6% 338 21.1%
With Cost Burden
>50% 8 1.6% 60 5.4% 68 4.2%
Total 1,070 41.2% 1,530 58.8% 2,600 %
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018
3.7.4 Substandard Housing
HUD considers housing units to be “standard units” if they are in compliance with local building codes.
Substandard housing is housing that poses a risk to the health, safety, or wellbeing of its occupants or neighbors, includes housing that does not have operable indoor plumbing, electricity, or heat. Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Typically, housing over 30 years old is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. Some older housing units may have health risks such as lead paint and asbestos. Housing issues such as mold may elevate health conditions such as asthma.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-73
3.7.5 Regional Trends
In Napa County approximately 73 percent of all housing units were built before 1990. These older units potentially require minor repairs and modernization improvements. Figure 39 shows the approximate break down by age of housing units.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-74
Figure 38 Overpayment By Homeowners (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-75
Figure 39 Housing Stock Age (2015-2019)
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 The County of Napa has a total of 881 substandard housing units, approximately 2 percent of the total occupied units in the county. A housing unit is considered substandard if it lacks complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. Of the 881 substandard units, approximately 15 percent lacked complete plumbing facilities and 85 percent lacked complete kitchen facilities. Table 8 shows a breakdown of the number of substandard housing units in Napa County and St. Helena. In the past, lack of telephone service was also an indicator of housing conditions. Today, with the widespread availability of cell and internet phone services, many households have chosen not to install land line telephone services, and availability of telephone service is no longer considered an indicator of substandard housing conditions.
Table 8 Substandard Housing Units (2019)
Condition Napa County St. Helena
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 128 0.26% 0 0.00%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 753 1.55% 83 3.07%
Total 48705 2702
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
3.7.6 Local Trends
As shown above in Figure 39, approximately 79 percent of the city’s housing stock was built prior to 1990, potentially requiring minor repairs and modernization improvements.
Table 8 shows 83 units, about 3 percent of the St. Helena’s housing stock, are considered substandard. All identified substandard units lacked complete kitchen facilities. 2014 or
later
2010 to
2013
2000 to
2009
1990 to
1999
1980 to
1989
1970 to
1979
1960 to
1969
1950 to
1959
1940 to
1949
1939 or
earlier
Napa County 1.87% 1.30% 11.76% 12.20% 13.56% 17.76% 12.13% 16.28% 4.86% 8.28% St. Helena 1.34% 0.58% 7.67% 11.58% 11.55% 22.56% 14.64% 14.52% 5.29% 10.27%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
Year Built
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-76
3.7.7 Homelessness
“Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
▪ Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and ▪ Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
Throughout Napa Country, homelessness has become an increasingly important issue. Factors that contribute to the rise in homelessness include a lack of housing affordable available for low- and moderateincome households, increases in the number of persons whose incomes fall below the poverty level, reductions in public subsidies, and lack of support for persons with extreme developmental, physical, and mental disabilities.
3.7.8 Regional Trends
Napa County’s 2020 Point-In-Time Count indicated there were 464 persons experiencing homelessness in the county on any given night; mostly in the City of Napa. This is an increase from 322 persons in the 2018 Point-In-Time Count.
3.7.9 Local Trends
The number of homeless persons in St. Helena is unknown as the 2020 Point-In-Time Count does not include a breakdown of the homeless population by jurisdiction. Based on St. Helena’s share of the countywide population, 3.9 percent, it is estimated the City’s homeless population is approximately 18 persons.
3.7.10 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) and severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room. Large families generally have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with 3 or more bedrooms, resulting in overcrowding. Some households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing and accept smaller housing or reside with other individuals or families in the same home. Potential fair housing issues emerge if nontraditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding. Household overcrowding is reflective of various living situations such as a housing unit that is inadequately sized to Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-77
meet a household’s needs, the necessity or desire to have extended family members reside in an existing household, or unrelated individuals or families share a single housing unit.
Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain physical facilities and the delivery of public services, reduce the quality of the physical environment, contribute to a shortage of parking, and accelerate the deterioration of homes. As a result, some landlords or apartment managers may be more hesitant to rent to larger households, thus making access to adequate housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with higher proportion of overcrowding.
3.7.11 Regional Trends
In Napa County, approximately 6 percent of occupied housing units are overcrowded. As shown in Figure 40, overcrowded housing is most prevalent in the cities of Napa and Calistoga. The City of Napa has the highest percentage of overcrowded units. Certain areas within the city have between 14 and 36 percent of households that are overcrowded. Rural areas experience less overcrowding, and some rural areas have no overcrowded or severely overcrowded units.
Table 9 shows the percentage of housing units that are overcrowded. Renter-occupied households had a larger proportion of overcrowded households in the county.
Table 9 Overcrowding by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Overcrowded
(1+ occupants per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(1.5+ occupants per room)
Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total
St. Helena 9.26% 1.57% 4.74% 1.44% 1.01% 1.18%
Napa County 11.92% 2.99% 6.18% 3.50% 0.64% 1.66%
Source: Table B25014 Tenure by Occupants Per Room 2015-2019 ACS. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
3.7.12 Local Trends
Based on 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately 5 percent of households in St. Helena are overcrowded, compared to 6 percent for the county as a whole. As shown in Table 9,a higher proportion of renter households are overcrowded than owned households in St. Helena. Figure 41 shows the percent of overcrowded households throughout the city, no concentrated areas overcrowding of households are shown. ACS estimates indicate overcrowding is a more common housing issue for Hispanic/Latino households than White households where approximately 20 percent Hispanic/Latino households in St.
Helena are overcrowded compared to 3 percent of White households.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-78
Figure 40 Overcrowded Households (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-79
Figure 41 Overcrowded Households (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-80
3.7.13 Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production. Decades of disinvestment in low-income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk or experiencing homelessness.66
3.7.14 Regional Trends
The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) is an initiative out of the University of California, Berkeley that conducts data-driven research to better understand gentrification and displacement in order to generate more equitable and inclusive cities. UDP provides data to identify “sensitive communities,” communities that are vulnerable to displacement caused by housing costs or with market-based displacement pressures within or near the community. As shown in Figure 42 below, portions of the cities of Napa and Calistoga are identified as sensitive communities by UDP. These communities are also more racially/ethnically diverse and have lower household median income compared to other areas of the county.
3.7.15 Local Trends
UDP did not identify any areas within St. Helena that are considered vulnerable to displacement, as shown in Figure 43. However, research from the University of California Berkeley indicates that 42.0 percent of households in St. Helena live in neighborhoods susceptible to or experiencing displacement. 66 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-81
Figure 42 Sensitive Communities (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-82
Figure 43 Sensitive Communities (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-83
4. Local Area of Knowledge
The AFFH analysis identified the eastern portion of St. Helena generally experiences more fair housing issues than other areas of the city. Fair housing issues in this area include higher levels of minority populations, low and moderate median income, overpayment of housing, higher median rent, and lower economic and environmental outcomes. The predominant population in this area of the city is White, however it has the highest non-White population of all areas within the city. Additionally, this area has a higher proportion of persons living with a disability compared to other areas.
4.1 Stakeholder Input
The City held three housing workshops to receive feedback from the community on housing issues and the Housing Element Update (on September 16, 2021, January 20, 2022, and March 16, 2022). During these workshops, participants frequently brought up concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing for lower income households and the “missing middle” as well as the need to support affordable home ownership.
AFFH related concerns included the high cost of housing, transportation accessibility, ADU trends (specifically that ADUs tend to be utilized as vacation rentals and not housing).
4.1.1 Other Relevant Factors
Other factors to fair housing issues in St. Helena that have not been previously discussed in this analysis include lack of sufficient housing for farmworkers, availability of affordable units in a range of sizes, access to transportation, access to home ownership. These contributing factors limit the accumulation of wealth and access to housing resources in historically marginalized communities.
4.1.2 Farmworker Housing
An estimated between 6,000 and 9,000 farmworkers are employed Napa County. Sufficient affordable housing options are lacking for farmworkers who are often lower income and have special housing needs, such as seasonal housing. The number of farmworkers employed in St. Helena is unknown, however the city’s central location with regard to vineyards and wineries throughout the county would imply a number of farmworkers are employed in proximity to the city.
4.1.3 Access to Transportation
St. Helena’s public transportation system is operated by Vine Transit which operates one bus route (Route 10) in the city. Route 10 has four stops in the city, however all four stops are along the main road, State Route 29. Areas of the city located further north or south are more than 0.25 miles from a bus stop. This bus route does not connect to destinations south of the City of Napa or north of the City of Calistoga.
Residents who live or work in St. Helena may have limited options for traveling via public transit, potentially limiting their housing options.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-84
4.1.4 Access to Home Ownership
Increasing housing costs has produced a barrier to home ownership for St. Helena residents. As of December 2020, Zillow reported typical home values in St. Helena were estimated at $1,665,790, much higher than the typical home value in Napa County, which is estimated at $768,410. Typical home values reflect the value of homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. Home values have been consistently on the rise since 2000 (with the exception of the recession). This trend has made it more difficult for residents, especially lower income residents, to afford homes. Affordable housing projects in the city generally consist of rental units, which does not provide opportunities for lower income residents to own homes.
Mortgage application filing and acceptance data from 2018-2019 indicates there are racial/ethnic disparities among homeownership opportunities for residents in Napa County. As shown in Figure 44, 64 percent of White, Non-Hispanic applicants and 50 percent of Hispanic/Latinx had their loan originated, compared to 36 percent of Asian/ API applicants, 0 percent of Black/African American, and 0 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native applicants.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-85
Figure 44 Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files
5.Sites Inventory Analysis
5.1 Opportunity Areas
HCD and TCAC opportunity maps identify areas throughout the state whose characteristics support positive economic (low poverty, high employment, high median household income), educational (reading and math proficiency, high school graduation rates, low student poverty rates), and environmental outcomes (low exposure to pollution). A census tract with a designation of high resource would indicate there are strong educational and economic opportunities, meaning opportunity for current and future residents.
Most of the city is considered high and highest resource areas, including the western and southern portions of the city. However, the northern area of the city is designated as moderate resource and the eastern portion of the city is designated as low resource, indicating residents in these areas have low access to positive economic, educational, and environmental outcomes. The 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map maps influenced the locations of potential lower income sites in the city. 8% 6%
33%
9%
100%
17%
17% 16%
67%
18%
11%
17%
16%
36% 8%
6%
36%
64%
50%
57%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API,
Non-Hispanic
Black or
African
American,
Non-Hispanic
White, NonHispanicHispanic or
Latinx
Unknown
Loan Applications
Application approved but not accepted Application denied Application withdrawn by applicant File closed for incompleteness Loan originated
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-86
5.2 Improved Conditions
Demographic and socio-economic spatial patterns show that census blocks with low- and moderate-income households, greater Hispanic/Latino populations, and higher rates of housing problems are located throughout the eastern half of the city. Approximately 31 percent of the proposed units planned for in the sites inventory (Appendix B) are located in low resource areas of the city. Nine (9) percent are located in moderate resource areas, and 60 percent are located in high and highest resource areas. Sites that accommodate housing unit densities appropriate for lower-income units are scattered around the city, with sites accounting for 17 percent of the proposed lower income units located in low resource areas, 9 percent located in moderate resource areas, and 39 percent located in high and highest resource areas. Table 10 shows the number of housing units proposed in each category of resource area broken down by income category. Sites that can accommodate most of the lower income units are located in high resource areas.
Table 10 Proposed Sites Inventory Housing Unit Allocation Proposed Sites Inventory Housing Unit Allocation
Opportunity Category
Very Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income Total
Low Resource 61 40 8 109
Moderate Resource 31 0 0 31
High Resource 128 44 29 209
Total 228 84 37 349
Figure 45 shows the site inventory in relation to the TCAC Opportunity Map. Sites proposed within the eastern area of the city, which is a low resource area, are diverse with a mix of lower income and nonlower income sites. Lower income sites spread across low, moderate, and high resource areas. Site 7 (821 Pope Street) and Site 8 (882 and 886 College Avenue) have 50% lower income units and 50% moderate income units. The rest of the proposed lower income sites are 100% lower income units.
5.2.1 Exacerbated Conditions
The northern and eastern parts of the city contain block groups considered moderate and low resource with a higher concentration of Hispanic/Latino population, higher percent of renter occupied units, higher percentage of overpayment by residents, less positive economic outcomes, and higher pollution burden compared to the moderate and high resource areas of the city. According to California Housing Partnership data, all federal and State subsidized housing within St. Helena is in moderate and low resource areas in the northern and eastern portions of the city. The Sites Inventory does not exacerbate conditions in vulnerable areas of the city by identifying sites that can accommodate lower income units throughout the city. Additionally, one underutilized site was identified that could accommodate above moderate units in the lower resource area of the city.
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-87
5.2.2 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence There are no racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or affluence identified in St. Helena. However, eastern areas of the city have a larger population of Hispanic/Latino residents as well as LMI populations compared to other areas of the city. In contrast, western areas of the city have higher concentrations of White residents, higher median incomes, and lower concentration of LMI populations. Sites feasible for lower income housing were identified in these affluent areas.
5.2.3 Access to Opportunity
The city is categorized into 2 census tracts. The western tract is considered highest, high, and moderate resource and the eastern tract is a mix of low, moderate, and high resource. Housing units in the sites inventory are not disproportionately concentrated in different resource areas, and the sites identified in low resource areas are scattered on vacant and underutilized parcels to facilitate the development of lowerand above moderate-income units.
5.2.4 Disproportionate Housing Needs
The fair housing assessment found a need for affordable housing for people with disabilities and adequate low-income households. The City incentivizes the development of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing by reducing development fees and relaxing development standards to incentivize housing development. The City may also assist in acquiring and assembling property, subsidizing on-site and off-site improvements, and assisting in relocation activities as well as clearing and demolition.
5.2.5 Subsidized Housing
In 2019, approximately 1,105 households received Housing Choice Vouchers in the County of Napa, with 10 households receiving rental assistance and 6 households on the wait list in St. Helena.67 The AFFH Data Viewer does not have data on Housing Choice Vouchers for St. Helena. 67 City of Napa Housing Authority’s Annual Report Housing Services Agreement, 2019, https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3395/2018- 2019_housing_services_annual_report.pdf
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-88
Figure 45 Location of Sites Inventory in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-89
6.Contributing Factors
This assessment of fair housing issues identifies factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the City of St. Helena, as shown in Table 11.
Table 11 Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Meaningful Action Fair housing enforcement and outreach · Lack of fair housing requirements and information provided to residents
· Outreach and communication of services
are limited to English
· Limited fair housing testing and
enforcement
· Participate in FHNV meetings, at least
once annually, to coordinate regional
responses to housing discrimination
issues (Program HE-WW)
Lack of affordable housing and displacement of
residents
· Increasing rent and house/property costs
· Dominance of single family housing
· Land use and zoning laws
· Availability of affordable units in a range
of housing types
· Diversify and expand the housing stock
to accommodate the varied housing
needs of different groups (Programs H-F,
H-I, H-J, H-K, H-V, H-KK)
· Pursue down payment and mortgage
assistance resources through the
Housing Trust Fund or other resources
(such as CalHome) for local funding to
assist lower and moderate-income
residents (Program H-FF)
· Development of affordable housing on
City-owned sites (Program HE-U)
· Provide by right approvals for multifamily housing projects that meet objective design and development
standards (Program H-U)
· At least once annually, provide an
informational workshop on accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) in the city, and
target outreach to residents in the high
Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Public Review Draft, June 2022 A-90
resource southwest of Main Street and
northeast of Pratt Street (Program H-O)
Concentration of lower income and minority
households in the southeastern areas of the
city
· Land use and zoning laws
· Location of existing affordable housing
· Prioritize affordable housing in high
resource areas southwest of Main Street
and northeast of Pratt Street (Program
H-U)
· Encourage construction and renting of
ADUs in high resource areas to increase
supply of variety of housing types in the
city (Programs H-C, H-J, H-Q)
· Prioritize CIP in low resource areas
(Program H-VV)
· Revise inclusionary housing ordinance
for more lower income units, realistic inlieu fees, workforce housing, and more on-site housing requirements (Program
HE-G)
· Invest in public infrastructure projects in
low and moderate resource areas that
improve the quality of life for residents
(Program H-VV)
Limited resources for persons with
disabilities
· High cost of transportation for persons
with disabilities
· Lack of ADA compliant sidewalks
· Reduce ridership costs for VineGo
paratransit system (Program H-VV)
· Work with the County of Napa to carry
out the ADA self-Evaluation and
transition Plan to remove barriers for
persons with disabilities to facilities and
programs in Napa County (Program HVV)
Agenda Item #6.1.
1 Aaron Hecock
From: Nancy Dervin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 3:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; CityCouncil; Aaron Hecock Subject: Re: [External] Public Review Draft Housing Element Available Now! Dear HCD,
I am concerned about the City of St. Helena putting forth a Housing Element Draft that contains at least one property that the City has repeatedly been told is absolutely not available which is 601 Pope Street. There are other properties on the Draft that are also potentially not available but this one site is positively not available.
We have a huge housing shortage problem, like most communities. Knowingly including unavailable sites is unethical as well as contrary to the purpose of identifying housing opportunity sites.
What should be or can be done about this?
Sincerely,
Nancy Dervin
St. Helena, CA
From: St. Helena Housing Element <[email protected]> on behalf of St. Helena Housing Element <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 10:31 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Review Draft Housing Element Available Now!
CITY OF ST. HELENA
Agenda Item #6.1.
1 Aaron Hecock
From: Mary Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 12:54 PM
To: Aaron Hecock
Subject: [External] Housing sites
I wanted to comment on the list of potential sites for housing that was in the St Helena Star. I’ve taken the time to look at each of the addresses mentioned. With the exception of one, I found all of them viable locations. My one exception is the vineyard location on Spring St.
One of the things that makes St Helena unique are the vineyards still scattered within the city. They are a part of our heritage, displaying the agriculture that has made this valley the world class jewel that it is. Please allow this one to remain as it is.
Respectfully, Mary Wilson
Sent from my iPad
Mary Wilson
1426 Kearney St.
St. Helena, Ca. 94574
707‐529‐4406
Agenda Item #6.1.
As concerned St. Helena residents, we have read the Housing Element Update and plan to attend the public forum.
We support the city’s efforts to identify appropriate sites for potential development to provide additional housing that is badly needed. Yet af te
r
reading about proposed rezoning and adding more density, we remain vigilant in pointing out situations where multi—unitprojects would negati vely impact neighborhoods.
e have shared with several City officials the situation we face after th e recent purchase of the parcels at 1521 and 1541 Elmhurst. The owner, Jennifer Mozzetti, and her friend John Bowman, a self-described devel oper from Napa, have disrupted this peaceful neighborhood with their allege d plans to develop the parcel at 1541 Elmhurst into a multi—unitsite with “cooperation of the City.” They initially claimed, as a result of their purc hase of the two parcels, they “owned” the Elmhurst Alley from the property 1 5 2
1 extending to the end of the alley.
The city, through correspondence from Eric Janzen on 5/17/22 and sev era
l
other emails, assured us that the Elmhurst Alley was listed by the Coun ty Assessors as a public right of way and is not owned by Ms. Mozzetti.
Elmhurst Alley is a single lane, dead-end alley that extends off busy Sp rin
g
Mountain Road. It provides access to the vehicles of 5 single family ho me
s
in
addition to the mail truck, delivery trucks and home health care vehicle s
t
h
a
t
service those homes. The tightness of this alley already poses safety questions for Emergency and Fire Department vehicles.
Housin
g
Efor Public Comment
le Aaron City Senior Planner, of St. Helena
ahecoc
k@
cityofst
helena.
org
Cityof St Helena, Hall
Received
JUL1132
0 2
2 1480 Main
St Helena, CA
July 10
, Dear H
ec
o
c
k,
Agenda Item #6.1.
Any development the propert at 1541 Elmhurst from its current singley family residence tamul would beunwise ad unsafe expnding the tiunit
number of alley u
s
e
r
s
.
(day finds the with street many as15
Garb
age
garbage cans as isCertai goal the of adding multi—unit housing inSt !)nly, Helena is a lauda
ble
one but drop tonew amulti-unit project already anin
, dense neighborho
od
wit limited access from asingle-lane, blind aley, would h be ill-conceived.
2. Can individu
als,
see todevelop multi-unit housing ontheir own
kin
g
properties appl
y
tbeinclude onthis site list?
od
Ifthe answer is either question, tokindly we arequest site visit, in person, by a m
e
m
be
r
of the Planning Commission, sothate impact of
will beobvious.
Our specific qu
est
io
ns
are hope these w you can answer:
1.The Housing mentions aninventory possible ofsites, yet no public, that mi
gh
t
beused dvelop tomore housing.
is the parcel atElmhu currently onthis site or list being rst considered?
Sincerely
_
yours,
Dayna Van Kleeck
1800 Spring Mountai
n
C
o
u
rt
/‘
/
H n Ki . 1781 Spri
ng
MRoad
ou
nta
in
-/A ' Susan Ki
stl
ei
1781 S
p
ri
n
g
Moun Road
tain
ad
di
ng
more housing and residents onAlley Elmhurst
Agenda Item #6.1.
Lampkin
777 Spring Mou
ntain
Roa
d
Terence Ford
1806 Spring Mou
ntain
Cour
t
Vlad
ymer
DeLevi 1809 Mounta Court
in
Brenda Hill
1777 pri inRoad
Polin
a1809 Mounta Court
in
Ka F0
1806Mountai Court
n Agenda Item #6.1.
Iv Polina D
eL
ev
i
1809 Spr
ing
Court Mo
unt
ain
Kat r
y
n
Fo
rd 1806 Court Mount
ain
Teren
ce
Fo
rd 1806 Court Mounta
in
Jim L
a 1777 Road Mount
ain
Brend
a
H
ill 1777 Road Mount
ain
VIad
ymér 1809
\De —
Levi
Mountai Court
n Agenda Item #6.1.
1 Aaron Hecock
From: Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 12:12 PM
To: Aaron Hecock
Cc: Mary Stephenson; Maya DeRosa; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy; Jennifer La Liberte; Jordan Bentley; Joe Mcgrath
Subject: [External] Re: [External] A Potential New Opportunity Site Aaron:
Thanks.
Speaking as a private citizen and neighboring property owner (and concurring with Mary as an OTSH Board member), I would also advocate that this lot [620 McCorkle ‐ APN 009‐502‐003‐000] be added to this HE cycle as a "Housing Opportunity Site".
In light of the recent multi‐family developments on that street I would recommend however that it remain MDR, otherwise it may cause too much opposition with residents on the south side of McCorkle.
The goal would be to eliminate conditional use requirements which become, as you know, major entanglements in entitlement.
However, as MDR it should be explicitly listed under 17.40.020 Permitted Uses (N):
N. Multiple-family dwellings, apartments, and dwelling groups at a density up to the maximum allowed by the medium density residential district shall be allowed as a permitted use on the following MR zoned parcels, which are identified as “Key Housing Sites” in Table 42 of the city’s 2015-2023 housing element, and are identified as follows by street address and assessor’s parcel number (APN): 567 Pope St. APN 009-070-002; 591 McCorkle Ave. APN 009-070-003; 1817 Spring St. APN 009-322-009; Sulphur Springs Ave. APN 009-362- 015; Spring St. APN 009-441-023 and 009-552-002; 576 Pope St. APN 009-552-003; 1105 Pope St. APN 009- 090-003. (Ord. 17-2 § 6 (part); Ord. 16-8 § 1; Ord. 15-2 § 7 (part): Ord. 12-2 § 6: Ord. 07-5 § 2 (part): Ord. 05-4 § 1 (part): Ord. 03-4 § 11: prior code § 27.51)
Please confirm that the above constitutes "public comment".
Thx,
Joe
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 10:13 AM Aaron Hecock <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Mary,
You can certainly make a public comment requesting that it be included as a housing opportunity site. We're holding a joint Planning Commission & City Council meeting on July 21st from 3‐5 pm to take public comment on the public review draft of the Housing Element Update and to receive direction on proceeding. You can comment in writing beforehand, verbally during the meeting, or both.
Kindly,
Aaron
Agenda Item #6.1.
1 Aaron Hecock
From: Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:41 PM
To: Aaron Hecock; Maya DeRosa
Subject: [External] HE Draft Input
Aaron/Maya:
Here are some additional comments/inputs re: Housing Element. Please do not take them as criticism of your hard work.
The Housing Element can be a valuable tool to accomplish our municipal housing objectives if we shape it correctly.
Thanks,
Joe
General Comments:
* Current planning meetings should be held in person with a zoom option. It should no longer be acceptable that public meetings are held entirely by Zoom. It also should not be acceptable that participants to Zoom meetings have no idea how many other participants are present, and, if participants "opt‐in" to identify themselves, are identified. * The document and the process are too long, too bureaucratic, and not specific enough with respect to immediate and effective actions and policy changes that will alter the climate in any meaningful way to have a real near‐term impact on affordable or missing middle housing.
* The document itself is outdated with may reference to data as far back as 2019 representing "current" data. We lived in a far different world than in 2019.
* A major flaw in the Housing Element process for Above Moderate or Market Rate units. Our State Legislators did not comprehend second home or vacation communities.
So meeting the HE RHNA objective for Above Moderate by enabling, say, the Hunter Project is nonsensical if say 50% of the SFHs ultimately become vacation homes.
Having these types of development consume constrained water, sewer and other valuable resources can impinge on more critical housing needs.
Specific Section / Page Comments:
H‐C We should be planning for a more sustainable and less car‐dependent future. We should be exploring opportunities to increase infill density and explore expanding height limits, and reduce parking requirements. Up and In should be the focus. The block of land from south of White Sulphur Spring Creek to Grayson and West of Highway 29 and east of Crane vineyard is one of the most poorly utilized sections of the City. We should unleash a task force to see if we can unlock Agenda Item #6.1.
2 potential here. Expanding the Urban Limit Line should be our last option, and runs great risk of negatively impacting what makes this such a great and desirable place to live with a vibrant wine industry and tourism economy.
H‐D. Water and sewer access should be prioritized for both affordable and missing middle. Also please define "missing middle" in terms of AMI %. 200%? Water Neutrality Requirement should also be eliminated for any attached affordable and missing middle. Mandate no‐irrigation landscaping instead. All new buildings in CA are highly water efficient by California Building Code. It is better that we have new stock than old stock re: environmental sustainability (similar to newer car fleet vs. older regarding emissions).
H‐M. It should not take 4 more years following 3 years working on the Housing Element to understand what Zoning Ordinances need to be changed to enable housing.
1) Start with removing the Conditional Use Permit requirement in some manner on MDR Zoning. At minimum, it should be reduced for any parcel identified in Housing Element as Housing Opportunity Site (not just Key Housing Opportunity Site") . It is imperative to reduce or eliminate "discretionary" review. Discretionary review is the toehold for opposition on these projects. It is also a toehold for CEQA opposition. 2) Define "Missing Middle" in terms of AMI. 200%?
3) Tradeoff off 2:1 (or some such ratio) of affordability requirements on private developers for below moderate units for moderate to missing middle (200%) cutoff units. Ie a developer can meet "affordable" designation if he/she builds (2) deed‐restricted moderate to missing middle (80‐200%AMI?) units for every (1) required < moderate unit (<80% AMI unit).
4) Eliminate Water Neutrality requirements for above. This is just one more hurdle. 5) Eliminate Housing Impact Fees for above. By very nature these projects are having a POSITIVE housing impact. 6) Reduce overall permit fee structure for above. (on page 2‐142 it calculates 12.3% of multi‐family costs on Permits & Fees. This is right after it the HE states that governmental constraints are not a factor? ) Pg 1‐15:
H‐J. What can we do to entice existing ADUs into a deed‐restricted affordable? How about a tradeoff on property tax relief on that unit for 30‐yr deed‐restriction and rental occupancy rate compliance?? Pg 1‐19:
H‐P. We should not further incent ADUS beyond existing state mandates unless they have deed‐restriction and rental occupancy requirements in exchange.
Pg 1‐29:
H‐II. What are the accountabilities of the Housing Coordinator? Why would we not do this under existing Departments? Pg 1‐34:
H‐UU. We should be considering "no‐irrigation" landscaping (at least after plants take hold).
We should eliminate the Water Neutrality Requirement on any deed‐restricted affordable < 200% AMI. This is a cumbersome and complex and expensive requirement to comply with. New attached buildings under CBC are highly water efficient and perform well below 65 GPD per capita. Nix the irrigated landscaping as a tradeoff.
Pg 2‐38:
HE1.B. This document indicates that because units have been built in last cycle that Growth management System was not an obstacle. This is untrue. 632 McCorkle was "lucky" in that we straddled two years and literally consumed (8) of the (9) available allocation. Had this been a 10 unit project, it is not clear what the City would have done. Had there Agenda Item #6.1.
3 been another similar project, it is unclear what the city would have done. Uncertainty is the enemy of Investment and the friend of Risk.
Pg 2‐103
Table 16 ‐ Grayson Apartment 2 units funding source were not Tax Credits, nor AHP, nor RHCP, nor City funded. These two units were funded privately through inclusionary requirements on 632 McCorkle. This is an important point, because we will not solve the housing crisis here exclusively through non‐profits.
Pg 2‐125:
Saying that Building Codes and Zoning Ordinances are not a "governmental constraint" to development is an entirely untrue statement and somewhat offensive coming from a government agency. While I would not argue that enhancements in the California Building Code are in most cases warranted, they have most definitely affected housing costs and housing production and have contributed to the shortage of affordable housing stock. Enhancements to CBC in ADA, Seismic, Fire, and Environmental requirements have played a significant role in the increase in housing costs. This must be acknowledged. As for Fire Code, nearly all of the costs in the building code are for suppression systems to extinguish a fire that starts inside the building. Most homes in CA are destroyed by fire from outside the building.. The CBC however is very clear and the requirements do not have broad interpretation, so while costly to comply with, is not a great impediment.
Zoning Ordinances however and discretionary reviews are something entirely different. Developers do not like uncertainty. If a Zoning Ordinance can be interpreted differently by different people ‐ that is problematic. And if the outcome of a Design Review Meeting may be different based on the makeup of a Commission that is problematic.
Developers do not like uncertainty. This is why discretionary reviews are highly problematic. To bring a complete application to Design Review Submission ‐ let's say 8‐12 units ‐ could easily require an investment of $250K. Surveys, Civil Plans, Arch Plans, Elec Plans, Plumbing Plans, Mechanical Plans, etc. This all with the possibility of project Denial.
Lastly. CEQA is a major governmental constraint and should be acknowledged as such. CEQA should have no role in infill projects within ULL unless special circumstances warrant. 2‐132:
We should articulate what Design Review is "not". For projects that are entitled, Design Review has no function in determining whether a project can be built or not to its entitlement. It would be much preferable to establish objective design guidelines that should be followed for multi‐family rather than subject applications to a highly subjective process. 2‐138:
Parking requirements for 2 Bedrooms within the ULL should be reduced to 1.5 spaces for <200% AMI.
Housing Opportunity Sites Input
For the sites listed, the probability that any given site gets developed in the next HE cycle range between 0% and 95% (Phelps Site). Most sites identified have a low probability (< 10%?) chance of being developed. 709 McCorkle: This site has recently been purchased and is intended to function as an estate compound. 741 McCorkle: This house has been recently renovated with significant capital improvements, and is unlikely to be further developed in this HE cycle.
1637 Spring Street: This site has recently been purchased for the intent of turning it into employee housing. My understanding is that the current plan is to convert 1 BRs into 2 BRs through garage conversion.
Agenda Item #6.1.
4 620 McCorkle: Per prior inputs, this site should be added to the Housing Opportunity Site and Key Housing Opportunity Site list.
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:41 PM
To: Aaron Hecock <[email protected]>; Maya DeRosa <[email protected]> Subject: [External] HE Draft Input
Aaron/Maya:
Here are some additional comments/inputs re: Housing Element. Please do not take them as criticism of your hard work. The Housing Element can be a valuable tool to accomplish our municipal housing objectives if we shape it correctly.
Thanks,
Joe
General Comments:
* Current planning meetings should be held in person with a zoom option. It should no longer be acceptable that public meetings are held entirely by Zoom. It also should not be acceptable that participants to Zoom meetings have no idea how many other participants are present, and, if participants "opt-in" to identify themselves, are identified. Meetings are moving to in-person at the end of July.
* The document and the process are too long, too bureaucratic, and not specific enough with respect to immediate and effective actions and policy changes that will alter the climate in any meaningful way to have a real near-term impact on affordable or missing middle housing. The contents of the document are prescribed by HCD; we have little discretion in that regard. * The document itself is outdated with may reference to data as far back as 2019 representing "current" data. We lived in a far different world than in 2019. Housing Element Updates take over two years to complete and the background research happens early in the process. A majority of the background research was completed in early 2021, at which time data from 2019 was the latest and most accurate available. We realize that things have changed since 2019, however, HCD used 2019 (or prior) data for the RHNA and is has approved 2019 data for 6th cycle housing elements. * A major flaw in the Housing Element process for Above Moderate or Market Rate units. Our State Legislators did not comprehend second home or vacation communities.
So meeting the HE RHNA objective for Above Moderate by enabling, say, the Hunter Project is nonsensical if say 50% of the SFHs ultimately become vacation homes.
Having these types of development consume constrained water, sewer and other valuable resources can impinge on more critical housing needs. Comment noted.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Specific Section / Page Comments:
H-C We should be planning for a more sustainable and less car-dependent future. We should be exploring opportunities to increase infill density and explore expanding height limits, and reduce parking requirements. Up and In should be the focus. The block of land from south of White Sulphur Spring Creek to Grayson and West of Highway 29 and east of Crane vineyard is one of the most poorly utilized sections of the City. We should unleash a task force to see if we can unlock potential here. Expanding the Urban Limit Line should be our last option, and runs great risk of negatively impacting what makes this such a great and desirable place to live with a vibrant wine industry and tourism economy. The proposed zoning code does have a sustainability focus by establishing a new Mixed Use zoning district, and in appropriate areas such as the High Density zone, allowable heights have been increased up to 12 additional feet. Further, we understand that providing parking onsite can be a physical and financial burden to developers and residential parking requirements have been reduced. The implementing program is to ‘explore’ the Urban Limit Line option; there is no requirement to revise the urban limit line.
H-D. Water and sewer access should be prioritized for both affordable and missing middle. Also please define "missing middle" in terms of AMI %. 200%? Water Neutrality Requirement should also be eliminated for any attached affordable and missing middle. Mandate no-irrigation landscaping instead.
All new buildings in CA are highly water efficient by California Building Code. It is better that we have new stock than old stock re: environmental sustainability (similar to newer car fleet vs. older regarding emissions). Comment noted. Missing middle was defined as 120% AMI.
H-M. It should not take 4 more years following 3 years working on the Housing Element to understand what Zoning Ordinances need to be changed to enable housing. Comment noted. 1) Start with removing the Conditional Use Permit requirement in some manner on MDR Zoning. At minimum, it should be reduced for any parcel identified in Housing Element as Housing Opportunity Site (not just Key Housing Opportunity Site") . It is imperative to reduce or eliminate "discretionary" review.
Discretionary review is the toehold for opposition on these projects. It is also a toehold for CEQA opposition. Comment noted. There is no longer a use permit requirement in the MR zoning to build multi-family housing. Additionally, consistent with State Housing legislation, our new zoning code will include objective standards to allow for ministerial review of multi-family housing. 2) Define "Missing Middle" in terms of AMI. 200%? 120%
3) Tradeoff off 2:1 (or some such ratio) of affordability requirements on private developers for below moderate units for moderate to missing middle (200%) cutoff units. Ie a developer can meet "affordable" designation if he/she builds (2) deed-restricted moderate to missing middle (80-200%AMI?) units for every (1) required < moderate unit (<80% AMI unit). Comment noted. 4) Eliminate Water Neutrality requirements for above. This is just one more hurdle. Comment noted. 5) Eliminate Housing Impact Fees for above. By very nature these projects are having a POSITIVE housing impact. Comment noted.
Agenda Item #6.1.
6) Reduce overall permit fee structure for above. (on page 2-142 it calculates 12.3% of multi-family costs on Permits & Fees. This is right after it the HE states that governmental constraints are not a factor? ) Comment noted.
Pg 1-15:
H-J. What can we do to entice existing ADUs into a deed-restricted affordable? How about a tradeoff on property tax relief on that unit for 30-yr deed-restriction and rental occupancy rate compliance?? Options will be explored in the future.
Pg 1-19:
H-P. We should not further incent ADUS beyond existing state mandates unless they have deedrestriction and rental occupancy requirements in exchange. ADUs were incentivized generally in order to encourage more affordable housing types in low density areas that don't allow multi-family development. We want to further incentivize ADUs with affordability requirements, so we continued the program linking affordability requirements and ADU incentives.
Pg 1-29:
H-II. What are the accountabilities of the Housing Coordinator? Why would we not do this under existing Departments? This is to explore options, there is no requirement that a regional housing coordinator be hired. The goal of the program is to do more in-house or to establish a regional coordinator with partnering jurisdictions, rather than rely on the City of Napa Housing Authority only. Current staff doesn't have the capacity to take on this role, so the City wanted to explore hiring someone. Possible activities for the Housing Coordinator could include: pursue funding for affordable developments, establish public/private partnerships, receive and respond to fair housing complaints, provide public education on fair housing issues, and even manage Housing Choice Vouchers.
Pg 1-34:
H-UU. We should be considering "no-irrigation" landscaping (at least after plants take hold).
We should eliminate the Water Neutrality Requirement on any deed-restricted affordable < 200% AMI.
This is a cumbersome and complex and expensive requirement to comply with. New attached buildings under CBC are highly water efficient and perform well below 65 GPD per capita. Nix the irrigated landscaping as a tradeoff. Comment noted.
Pg 2-38:
HE1.B. This document indicates that because units have been built in last cycle that Growth management System was not an obstacle. This is untrue. 632 McCorkle was "lucky" in that we straddled two years and literally consumed (8) of the (9) available allocation. Had this been a 10 unit project, it is not clear what the City would have done. Had there been another similar project, it is unclear what the city would have done. Uncertainty is the enemy of Investment and the friend of Risk. The Growth Management System has not prevented a project to date and is no longer enforceable due to existing state laws.
Pg 2-103
Table 16 - Grayson Apartment 2 units funding source were not Tax Credits, nor AHP, nor RHCP, nor City funded. These two units were funded privately through inclusionary requirements on 632 McCorkle.
Agenda Item #6.1.
This is an important point, because we will not solve the housing crisis here exclusively through nonprofits. Comment noted; staff will revise the table accordingly.
Pg 2-125:
Saying that Building Codes and Zoning Ordinances are not a "governmental constraint" to development is an entirely untrue statement and somewhat offensive coming from a government agency. While I would not argue that enhancements in the California Building Code are in most cases warranted, they have most definitely affected housing costs and housing production and have contributed to the shortage of affordable housing stock. Enhancements to CBC in ADA, Seismic, Fire, and Environmental requirements have played a significant role in the increase in housing costs. This must be acknowledged. As for Fire Code, nearly all of the costs in the building code are for suppression systems to extinguish a fire that starts inside the building. Most homes in CA are destroyed by fire from outside the building.. The CBC however is very clear and the requirements do not have broad interpretation, so while costly to comply with, is not a great impediment. Comment noted.
Zoning Ordinances however and discretionary reviews are something entirely different. Developers do not like uncertainty. If a Zoning Ordinance can be interpreted differently by different people - that is problematic. And if the outcome of a Design Review Meeting may be different based on the makeup of a Commission that is problematic. Developers do not like uncertainty. This is why discretionary reviews are highly problematic. To bring a complete application to Design Review Submission - let's say 8-12 units - could easily require an investment of $250K. Surveys, Civil Plans, Arch Plans, Elec Plans, Plumbing Plans, Mechanical Plans, etc. This all with the possibility of project Denial. Comment noted.
Lastly. CEQA is a major governmental constraint and should be acknowledged as such. CEQA should have no role in infill projects within ULL unless special circumstances warrant. Comment noted; changes to the requirements of CEQA can only come from the state. 2-132:
We should articulate what Design Review is "not". For projects that are entitled, Design Review has no function in determining whether a project can be built or not to its entitlement. It would be much preferable to establish objective design guidelines that should be followed for multi-family rather than subject applications to a highly subjective process. As noted in an above response, the updated code includes objective standards to allow ministerial review of multi-family projects. 2-138:
Parking requirements for 2 Bedrooms within the ULL should be reduced to 1.5 spaces for <200% AMI.
The new code proposes 2 bedroom multi-family units with three or more units, have a parking ratio of
1.5 spaces per unit.
Housing Opportunity Sites Input
For the sites listed, the probability that any given site gets developed in the next HE cycle range between 0% and 95% (Phelps Site). Most sites identified have a low probability (< 10%?) chance of being developed.
Agenda Item #6.1.
709 McCorkle: This site has recently been purchased and is intended to function as an estate compound.
The new owner of this site has initiated an urban lot split pursuant to SB 9 which will result in two lots that can both accommodate two units (4 units total and half of the units assumed for both the sites included as site 6).
741 McCorkle: This house has been recently renovated with significant capital improvements, and is unlikely to be further developed in this HE cycle. The site is zoned medium density residential and is currently underutilized. The structures on the site are configured in such as way that an urban lot split is still feasible in the future.
1637 Spring Street: This site has recently been purchased for the intent of turning it into employee housing. My understanding is that the current plan is to convert 1 BRs into 2 BRs through garage conversion. The owner of this site reached out to staff directly noting their desire to double the number of units on the site in the future.
620 McCorkle: Per prior inputs, this site should be added to the Housing Opportunity Site and Key Housing Opportunity Site list. Comment noted. Staff will receive direction from the Planning Commission and City Council on July 21, 2022.
Agenda Item #6.1.
1 Aaron Hecock
From: LAURA KEIR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Aaron Hecock
Subject: [External] Land designation
Hi
It appears numerous parcels sent to the state to meet our quota fir homes are not currently available for sale? Are they going to be for sale? And we are not aware? Or, emanate domain enforcement would be necessary? I firmly disagree with the high to med density development of Valley View Hudson vineyard property being developed as traffic on the road is already more than a residential area should have to handle between cut threw traffic to avoid Hwy 29 to the school traffic it’s impossible to safely get out of your driveway or even ride a bike! Spring Street is narrow and I notice in addition three sites are designated as possible development.
The government/ Bay Area need to either agree to continue our exempt status. Recognize us as a primary agricultural area or the Napa Vally will be destroyed!
Laura
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #6.1.
Saint Helena Housing Coalition, Inc.
PO Box 988
Saint Helena, CA 94574
July 13, 2022
Mr. Aaron Hecock, AICP Senior Planner
City of Saint Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
Saint Helena, Ca 94574
RE: 2023-2031 Housing Element Draft
VIA: Email
Dear Mr. Hecock:
First of all ,we would like to thank you for the this very through and professional work product. It is obvious that much research and attention to detail has been taken.
A question. Under the Water Section it is stated that “although the maximum amount of (Bell Canyon) water that is available to the City is 992 acre-feet”. Why? In Section 11. Housing Resources -Future Housing Needs we note the following:
The City must ensure the availability of residential sites at adequate densities and appropriate development standards to accommodate these units by income category.(Emphasis added).
Based upon our work in attempting to find suitable land for new “affordable” Essential worker housing our experience, in part, differs from the report’s conclusions:
Regarding the City owned Adams Street parcel considerable thought should be given to identifying the Eastern most portion of the parcel, not the Western end for “affordable” housing. SHHC submitted as preliminary site plan so indicating. Thus, leaving the West end for a potential city hall location or other civic functions. To us, it does not make sense to place any type of affordable” housing at the West end.
Site 4: 905 Main Street. When SHHC made inquiries, we were informed that the owner expressed that this for-sale price of this parcel would exceed $1,000,000. Given the suggested density of five units that would make the land cost per unit $200,000. For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be nearer to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible.
Site 7: 81 Pope Street. Zillow estimates that the current price for this property is approximately $2,000,000. Again, that would work out to a land cost of $100,000 per unit of the projected 20 “affordable Units (to say nothing of the cost of demolishing the existing structure). . For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be near to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Site 9: 1447 and 1515 Spring Street. The Zillow estimated sales price for each of the existing residences at $1.6mm to $1.75mm, totally $3.35mm in value. For the estimated 24 units that works out to a land cost of $139,583.00 per unit. For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be near to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible.
Site 10: Spring Street between Hudson Avenue & Valley View. From my notes during the public comment portion, I believe it was Joe McGrath who said that this property had recently been sold and lease-back on a long-term basis. Based upon that it would appear this parcel is not currently available.
Site 11: 601 Pope Street. This property owner declined SHHC’s to acquire this parcel under a long-term lease. We offered $200,000 per year for a sixty-five-year lease and their response was “oh, we just like the way it looks”.
Site 12: 1637 Spring Street. As recently as this spring this property owner expressed No interest, and the direct quote was “let them try and develop it.” Therefore, Mr. Hecock, unless that City is prepared to use Eminent Domain as in Kelo v.
New London, it appears that the identified sites does not fulfill the “must” requirement of available sites to satisfy Saint Helena’s 2023-2031 RHNA requirements.
Respectfully submitted:
Rick Crebs
Rick Crebs, CEO
[email protected]
707-580-0418
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Housing Element
Public Review Draft
City of St. Helena
Planning Commission/City Council Joint Study Session
July 21, 2022
1 Agenda Item #6.1.
2 Introductions
Jim Harnish, JD
Project Manager
Ryan Lester
Deputy Project Manager
Ryan Russell
Senior Planner
Agenda Item #6.1.
Study Session #3:
Review the Public Review Draft Housing Element
Agenda:
▪ Project Overview
▪ Sites Inventory Process and Available Capacity
▪ Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
▪ Policy Document
▪ Next Steps
3 Meeting Purpose
Agenda Item #6.1.
Project Overview
4 Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ Provides an assessment of both current and future housing needs ▪ Identifies opportunities and constraints on housing production ▪ Establishes goals, policies, and programs to meet housing needs ▪ Updates City practices and regulations to reflect new State laws 5 What does a Housing Element Do?
Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ Updates are required by State law in eight year “cycles” ▪ Deadline for adoption is January 31, 2023
▪ Without a compliant Housing Element:
• The General Plan could be deemed inadequate and therefore invalid • A noncompliant or invalid General Plan creates the potential for the City to be sued when making land use decisions
• The City would be ineligible for several Federal and State housing, community development, and infrastructure funding and grant programs
6 Why are we Updating the Element?
Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ Planning Commission/City Council Study Sessions
• March 23, 2021: Housing Element Overview
• February 22, 2022: Sites Inventory and Potential Housing Opportunity Sites • July 21, 2022: Public Review Draft Housing Element (Today) ▪ Community Workshops (3)
• September 16, 2021: Housing Element Overview
• January 20, 2022: Sites Inventory and Potential Housing Opportunity Sites • March 16, 2022: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ▪ Focus Group Meetings (4)
7 Engagement Efforts in 2021 and 2022
Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ Branding and logo
▪ Newsletters
▪ Website
▪ Social media outreach
▪ Virtual Events (Zoom, etc.)
▪ Joint Study Sessions / Hearings
8 Public Information and Participation
Agenda Item #6.1.
Working Project Schedule
9 Agenda Item #6.1.
We welcome any additional comments after tonight!
https://sthelenahousing.com/
▪ Click the green “Comments” button to provide a comment directly to the Project Team
▪ Join the email list to stay up to date!
▪ Email comments directly to:
Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner, [email protected] 10 Submit Comments
Agenda Item #6.1.
Sites Inventory and
Available Capacity
11 Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ RHNA represents the minimum number of market rate and below market rate housing units each community is required to plan for by providing “adequate sites” through zoning. ▪ The CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determine the number of housing units allocated for each local government.
▪ It is one of the primary threshold criteria necessary to achieve HCD support of the Housing Element.
12 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ The site inventory is a required component of the Housing Element used to identify specific sites to meet the St. Helena RHNA allocation plus a required buffer
13 Site Inventory Process and Requirements
Lower Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total RHNA Very Low
Income Low Income
St. Helena
RHNA 104 59 26 67 256
St. Helena
RHNA +
20% Buffer
121 71 31 79 302
Agenda Item #6.1.
Sites or credits in the inventory can include:
▪ Housing projects under review or approved through Planning and expected to be built during the planning period
▪ ADU trends
▪ City-owned sites with housing in line with City goals ▪ Residentially zoned vacant sites or non-vacant sites with redevelopment potential
▪ Sites that would be rezoned to permit residential uses or higher density 14 Site Inventory Process and Requirements
Agenda Item #6.1.
Site Considerations:
▪ Environmental constraints and utility access
▪ Redevelopment potential/feasibility
▪ Sites identified for lower income must meet density and site requirements • Appropriate density: 20 units per acre
• Appropriate parcel size: between 0.5 and 10 acres
• Access to high performing schools, jobs, amenities (i.e., parks and services), health care facilities, and grocery stores
▪ Realistic capacity assumptions
15 Site Inventory Process and Requirements
Agenda Item #6.1.
What does it mean if my property is listed as an Opportunity Site? ▪ The City finds your property has potential capacity for new housing construction because it is vacant or underutilized and meets the criteria identified by HCD ▪ The City is working to encourage housing production on your site by incentivizing residential development through programs in the Housing Element ▪ Property owners are not required to take any action
• Owners are not compelled to develop or redevelop their parcels • Market forces will continue to drive development trends 16 Available Sites Inventory
Agenda Item #6.1.
Two focus group meetings and one community workshop were held to receive input from the community on the preliminary sites inventory. 17 Public Input on the Sites Inventory
Main Comments/Feedback Changes/Response
ADU trends: ADUs in the city should not
assume to be lower income
Allocated all ADU trends to above-moderate
Concern whether all the lower income sites
are on the eastern side of the city
Allocated lower income units in the inventory
throughout the city
Concern regarding feasibility of developing
housing on privately owned sites
Most of the sites have had current/recent property
owner interest in housing development. Remaining
sites were identified as feasible due to location or
existing use
Agenda Item #6.1.
18 Public Input on the Sites Inventory
Main Comments/Feedback Changes/Response
Potential to include the City-owned Adams
Street property in the site inventory
Future use of the site is unknown so this site was
left out of the inventory due to feasibility of
housing construction in the next 8 years. This site
could be added if directed
Identified sites that should be included in
the inventory
Added site 7 (sites along College Avenue) and site
10 (1998 Spring Street)
Identified sites to be removed or
reevaluated from the inventory based on
constraints or recent discussions
Removed site at 900 Crane Avenue and reallocated
units at site 5 (two sites along McCorkle)
Confirm sites have available infrastructure
to serve potential housing
Public works confirmed no sites in the inventory
have constraints to infrastructure connections
Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ The Hunter Subdivision project includes 51 single-family, 11 ADUs, and 25 multi-family units for a total of 87 units.
▪ ADU trend based on permitted number of ADUs in recent years (approximately 9 per year in recent years)
19 Housing Credits and ADU trends
Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate Total Units
Pending Projects
(Hunter Subdivision + other
pending projects)
4 1 88 93
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Agenda Item #6.1.
20 Sites Inventory
Lower Income
Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income Total
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
Sites Inventory Total 208 84 37 329
Agenda Item #6.1.
21 Sites Diagram
Agenda Item #6.1.
22 Sites Inventory
Lower Income Moderate Income
Above Moderate
Income Total
Credits
Pending Projects 4 1 88 93
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Sites Inventory
Sites Inventory 208 84 37 329
Total 212 85 197 494
St. Helena RHNA plus 20%
Buffer 192 31 79 302
Surplus 20 54 118 192
Agenda Item #6.1.
Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH)
23 Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” ▪ AFFH Seeks to:
• Combat housing discrimination
• Eliminate racial bias
• Undo historic patterns of segregation
• Lift barriers that restrict access
• Ultimately, foster inclusive communities and achieve racial equity, fair housing choice, and opportunity.
24 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ Five categories of analysis of fair housing issues:
1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
2. Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
3. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
4. Disparities in Access to Opportunities
5. Disproportionate Housing Needs (including displacement) 25 Assessment of Fair Housing
Agenda Item #6.1.
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity includes:
▪ Ability to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education
▪ Ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, including a discussion of any findings, lawsuits, enforcement actions, or settlements
The City contracts with the non-profit organization Fair Housing Napa Valley
▪ There have been no fair housing inquiries between 2013-2021 26 1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space
▪ Integration means there is not a high concentration of a particular demographic group (race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability) within a geographic location
▪ The assessment of segregation and integration patterns and trends includes:
• Race/Ethnicity
• Familial Status
• Income
• Persons with Disabilities
27 2. Segregation and Integration Patterns and
Trends
Agenda Item #6.1.
Racial and Ethnic Concentration: more than 50 percent non-white population Extreme Poverty: more than 40 percent below poverty line ▪ St. Helena does not have any R/ECAPs.
▪ According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately 8 percent of the population of St. Helena is living below the poverty level, consistent with poverty rates of Napa County. ▪ The western half of the city has a greater percentage of the population below the poverty line, between 10 and 20 percent.
28 3. Racial and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of
Poverty (R/ECAPS)
Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ The assessment of disparities in access to opportunities includes:
• Education
• Economic Development & Employment
• Transportation
• Healthy Environment
29 4. Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ Disproportionate Housing Needs refers to significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of other groups
▪ The assessment of Disproportionate Housing needs includes:
• Overpayment/Cost burden & Severe Cost Burden
• Overcrowding
• Substandard housing conditions
• Homelessness
• Displacement
30 5. Disproportionate Housing Needs
Agenda Item #6.1.
Meaningful Actions
The Housing Element must include meaningful actions to address identified fair housing issues and contributing factors.
Example meaningful action:
▪ Prioritize affordable housing in high resource areas (see Program H-U) For a summary of fair housing issues, contributing factors, and meaningful actions, see page A-89 in the Public Review Draft. 31 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Agenda Item #6.1.
Policy Document
32 Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ Builds upon existing goals policies, and programs
▪ Updates the City code for State law compliance
▪ Considers AFFH in programs under most goals, not just under the fair housing goal
▪ Where appropriate, programs include an estimate of the number of households that may be assisted
• These serve as metrics the City can use to monitor progress toward objectives throughout the planning period
• Monitoring occurs annually and is required by HCD through the Housing Element Annual Progress Report
33 Policy Document Update
Agenda Item #6.1.
The Policy Document is organized under the following goal titles:
1. A Diversity of Housing to Meet Local Needs
2. High-Quality Neighborhoods with a Balance of Housing
3. Conservation of Existing Housing
4. Assistance to Support Affordable Housing
5. Resource Conservation
6. Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
▪ Each goal contains policies and programs that establish the City’s action plan. ▪ Programs establish specific commitments and are the focus of HCD’s review of the Policy Document.
34 Policy Document Organization
Agenda Item #6.1.
New Programs
In addition to existing programs, three new programs are included under this goal.
Program H-A: Available Sites Inventory. Required for State law compliance.
Program H-C: Urban Limit Line. New program for consideration. Works to address constraints to capacity.
Program H-H: Safety Element Update. Required for State law compliance. 35 Goal 1: A Diversity of Housing Types
Agenda Item #6.1.
New Programs
In addition to existing programs, two new programs are included under this goal.
Program H-T: Place-based Density Increases. New program for consideration.
Works to incentivize multi-unit development in low density areas. Providing additional housing opportunities in low-density areas works to relieve displacement pressures on zones with greater allowed density.
Program H-V: Missing Middle Housing. New program for consideration. Works to enhance housing mobility, a requirement of HCD.
36 Goal 2: High-Quality Neighborhoods with a
Balance of Housing Types
Agenda Item #6.1.
New Programs
In addition to existing programs, one new program is included under this goal.
H-AA: Special Housing Needs Rehabilitation Program. New program for consideration. Commits the City to pursue funding to address housing rehabilitation needs, particularly for seniors and others with special housing needs. 37 Goal 3: Conservation of Existing Housing
Agenda Item #6.1.
New Programs
In addition to existing programs, three new programs are included under this goal.
H-LL: Housing Information Transparency. Required for compliance with AB 1483.
H-MM: Funding for New Special Housing Needs. New program for consideration.
Commits the City to pursue funding to incentivize new construction of housing for seniors and those with special housing needs.
H-OO: Surplus and Excess Public Land. Required for compliance with AB 1486. 38 Goal 4: Assistance to Support Affordable Housing
Agenda Item #6.1.
New Programs
No new programs are included under this goal. Six existing programs will be continued in the upcoming planning period.
39 Goal 5: Resource Conservation
Agenda Item #6.1.
New Programs
In addition to existing programs, one new program is included under this goal.
H-VV: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. Required for State law compliance. This program establishes fair housing objectives based on findings from the AFFH analysis.
• The program also references additional programs with meaningful actions that work to address contributing factors to fair housing issues, as required by HCD.
40 Goal 6: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Agenda Item #6.1.
Next Steps
41 Agenda Item #6.1.
We welcome any additional comments after tonight!
https://sthelenahousing.com/
▪ Click the green “Comments” button to provide a comment directly to the Project Team
▪ Join the email list to stay up to date!
▪ Email comments directly to:
Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner, [email protected] 42 Reminder: Send us your Comments!
Agenda Item #6.1.
▪ Collect comments through July 30, 2022
▪ Revise the document to respond to comments (minimum 10 business days)
▪ Submit the revised draft to HCD for initial 90-day review ▪ Revise the draft based on HCD’s comments
▪ Hold public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the revised Element
43 Next Steps
Agenda Item #6.1.
Working Project Schedule
44 Agenda Item #6.1.
Questions?
45 Agenda Item #6.1.