St. Helena City Council
May 9, 2023

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-8

1.2.6 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) HCD and the TCAC created the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals.68 The Task Force created the AFFH Data Viewer, an interactive mapping tool to assess population and housing characteristics related to fair housing and access to opportunity to aid in the development of policy for the promotion of equitable and inclusive communities. The data viewer includes Opportunity Maps made from composite scores of three different domains made up from a set of indicators data shown in Table 1. The Opportunity Maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty Status. Census tracts with at least 30 percent of population that earned an income that was below the federal poverty level.
• Racial Segregation. Census tracts with a location quotient that is higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asians, or all non-White populations in comparison to the county.

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

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

1.2.8 Walk Score
Walk Score provides walkability services and apartment search tools to addresses across the United States, with the mission “to promote walkable neighborhoods.” Walk Score measures walkability by assigning a numerical walkability score based on distance to amenities within a 30-minute walk and evaluates 68Office of The State Treasurer (STO). 2021. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020-tcac-hcdmethodology.pdf Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 20232022
A-9
pedestrian friendliness by analyzing population density and road metrics, including block length and intersection density.

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

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

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

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-10

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

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

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

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

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

2.3 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity is the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing agencies to distribute fair housing and tenants’ rights information to their community. Enforcement and Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 20232022
A-11
outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, resolving issues, and conducting fair housing testing.

2.3.1 Regional Resources
Several organizations in Napa County provide aid for fair housing issues and outreach. Table 2Table 2 shows organizations and agencies that collaborate with local governments, including St. Helena to address housing and community needs and provide the following services:
• Housing Need Assessment
• Homelessness Needs
• Market Analysis
• Fair housing testing and complaints
• Fair housing counseling and education
• Tenant/landlord counseling and mediation
• Homeless prevention program
• Rental assistance program
• Rent/deposit grant program
• Home seeking services
• Shared housing counseling placement
• Homebuyers’ education learning program
Table 2 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Napa County Organization URL Phone Number
Abode Services https://www.abodeservices.org/napa-county (510) 657-7409 Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA) https://baylegal.org/ (800) 551-554 CA Department of Fair Employment and
Housing https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/ (800) 884-1684
EAH Housing https://www.eahhousing.org/
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern
California (FHANC) https://www.fairhousingnorcal.org/ (415) 457-5025 Fair Housing Napa Valley (FHNV) https://napafairhousing.org/ (707) 224-9720 Napa Continuum of Care https://homelessnapa.com/
Napa County Housing and Homeless
Services Division
https://www.countyofnapa.org/272/HomelessServices (707) 271-7818 Napa Valley Community Housing https://nvch.org/ (707) 253-6140 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-12
North Bay Housing Coalition https://www.northbayhousingcoalition.org/ (707) 289-7000 Source: City of Napa AI, 2020; Napa Sonoma Collaborative Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity and Resources, 2022

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

The City complies with existing fair housing laws and regulations. The City doesn’t not place more scrutiny or deny projects or individuals of their right to tenancy, residence, or entitlement based on memberships of protected class, in compliance with Government Code section 65008. Implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element would bring the City’s adopted regulations and policies into compliance with other fair housing regulations such as Program H-F which would bring density bonus provisions into compliance and allow for greater incentives for affordable housing. The City is also proposing updates to their existing Inclusionary Ordinance to promote more housing choices for residents.

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

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) maintains a record of housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. From 2015 - 2019, 256 fair housing complaints originating in Napa County were filed with DFEH. Overall, disability-related discrimination comprised the largest proportion of Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 20232022
A-13
cases (56 percent). The next highest basis for discrimination were race and familiar status, comprising nearly 8 percent each. According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, no fair housing inquiries for the City of St.

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

2.3.3 Findings, Lawsuits, and Enforcement Actions
There are currently no active fair housing lawsuits or enforcement actions in the city. However, historically, low-income and minority populations have struggled to procure affordable housing opportunities in the city. In addition, residents have challenged the City for not doing enough to combat housing segregation issues between the western and eastern portions of the city.

In 2013, the City of St. Helena signed a settlement agreement with Esvin Calderon as well as other residents and fair housing providers who had filed a lawsuit against the City on the basis that the City “promoted or maintained policies, practices, or actions that had the purpose of effect of displacing or excluding Latino residents and low-income residents from the City”. According to the settlement the City would comply with a list of requirements that would promote the development of affordable housing units in the city, including depositing $500,000 to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and amending the St.

Helena Municipal Code to support and prioritize affordable housing development, and to host fair housing workshops in collaboration with Napa Valley Fair Housing.

In 2016, St. Helena Residents For An Equitable General Plan, the McCorkle East Side Neighborhood Group, and the Protect the St. Helena Vineyard Riverwalk Community Group filed a claim with the City citing that the city is “a segregated city, with an affluent White west and diverse east side where most Hispanics, seniors, and members of other protected groups live largely in a concentrated area near the Napa River.” The City is in the process of adopting a new Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the 2040 General Plan, which would permit duplexes and triplexes within the MR District (see Program H-N). This would create additional housing choices and affordability levels in the MR Districts on the western side of the city. In addition, several programs, including H-BB, H-EE, and H-XX would implement placemaking strategies to outreach and work with the more diverse and older populations living in the east due to the historic development patterns.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-14

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

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

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

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

The index ranges from 0-100, where 0 represents perfect integration between the two racial/ethnic groups and 100 representing perfect segregation. An index value below 40 is generally considered low segregation, a value between 40 and 54 is considered a moderate level of segregation, and a value above 55 is a high level of segregation.69 Racial/ethnic segregation in Napa County slightly increased between 2010 and 2019. Table 3Table 3 shows racial/ethnic segregation in Napa County using the dissimilarity index using data from HUD’s AFFH mapping tool. Black and Asian/Pacific Islander residents are the most segregated compared to other racial and ethnic groups. Segregation between Black and White residents and between Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents is high, since their racial dissimilarity index scores are above 55 for 2019. Segregation between Non-White and White residents and between Hispanic and White residents is considered low, since their racial dissimilarity index scores are below 40 for 2019. In 69HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 20232022
A-15
Napa County, there has been an increase in segregation across all measured racial/ethnic groups between 2010 and 2019.

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

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

3.2 Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities include those with a physical or mental impairment including hearing, vision, mobility, cognitive function. For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity include access to accessible housing and housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s needs as required under federal civil rights law, including equitably provided disability-related services that an individual needs to live in such housing. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have actual housing choice without the presence of housing units with these accessibility features.70
High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to both physical needs and economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureau-designated poverty 70 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-16
line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.71 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit.

3.2.1.1 Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, a total of 16,244 Napa County residents had one or more disabilities, which represents approximately 11.8 percent of the county’s total population. Figure 4Figure 4 shows the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities throughout Napa County. The western areas of the county, which includes the urban areas of the cities, have higher concentrations of persons living with one or more disabilities compared to the eastern areas of the county. The southeastern area of the City of Napa has the highest concentration of persons living with one or more disabilities in the county.
71 The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics. 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-17
Figure 1 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-18
Figure 2 Percent of Total Non-White Population (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-19
Figure 3 Predominant Populations (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-20
Figure 4 Percent of Population with a Disability (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-21

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-22
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-23
Figure 6 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-24
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-25

3.3 Familial Status
Familial status refers to families with children under the age of 18, including those with legal custody of a child, pregnant persons, and those in the process of adopting or gaining legal custody. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords, including being denied housing due to the presence of children or being subject to special restrictions or fees. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining children to a specific location or unit are also fair housing concerns. In a 2016 housing discrimination study, researchers found that compared to households without children, households with children were shown slightly fewer units and were commonly told about units that were slightly larger, and as a result, slightly more expensive to rent.72 Additionally, female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of generally greater needs for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

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

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

Table 4 Household Type and Tenure (Napa County)
Household Type
OwnerOccupied
Percent of Total
OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupied
Percent of Total
RenterOccupied
Married Couple Family, with
Children Present 6,257 20.0% 4,036 23.2%
Single-Parent, Male Householder, no
Spouse Present 383 1.2% 577 3.3%
Single Parent, Female Householder,
No Spouse Present 700 2.2% 1,746 10.0%
Total Households with Children
Present 7,340 23.5% 6,359 36.5%
Total Households 31,276 100% 17,429 100%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates. 72 HUD. 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-26
Figure 7Figure 7 shows the percentage of children in married couple households in Napa County. The less urban areas of the county have higher concentrations of children residing in married couple households while the urban areas have a lower percentage of children residing in married couple households. In most areas of the county the majority of children live in married couple households, however the northern half of the county generally has a higher percentage of children living in married couple households compared to the southern half.

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

Less urban areas of the county, outside of incorporated cities, have less than 20 percent of families headed by a single female.

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

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

3.3.2 Local Trends
Approximately 58 percent of the total 2,702 households in St. Helena are family households, as shown in Table 5. The majority of families are married couple families with more renters than homeowners. However, more single-parent households own their home than rent. Table 6Table 6 shows the breakdown of families with children by tenure and household type.

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

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-27
Table 5 Household Type and Tenure (St. Helena)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table S2501 Occupancy Characteristics, 2015-2019 Estimates.

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

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

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

Figure 13Figure 13 provides estimates regarding the percent of the adult population living with a spouse in St. Helena. Throughout the city, 40 to 60 percent of adults are living with a spouse. Figure 14Figure 14 Household Type Owner-Occupied
Percent of Total
Owner-Occupied
RenterOccupiedPercent of Total
Renter-Occupied
Family
Households 920 58 586 53
Married couple family 735 46 408 37
Male householder, no
spouse present 29 2 63 6
Female householder, no
spouse present 156 10 115 10
Non-family
households 670 42 526 47
Living Alone 644 41 395 36
Not Living Alone 26 2 131 12
Total Households 1,590 1,112
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-28
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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-29
Figure 7 Children in Married-Couple Households (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-30
Figure 8 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-31
Figure 9 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-32
Figure 10 Population of Adults Living Alone (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-33
Figure 11 Children in Married-Couple Households (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-34
Figure 12 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-35
Figure 13 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-36
Figure 14 Population of Adults Living Alone (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-37
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 15Figure 15 shows the median household income for cities within Napa County.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-38
Figure 15 Median Household Income (2015-2019)
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey American Community Survey, 2015-2019.

Figure 16Figure 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 17Figure 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 15Figure 15.

Figure 18Figure 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 $-
$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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-39
Hunt’s Grove 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 19Figure 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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-40
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-41
Figure 16 Median Household Income (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-42
Figure 17 Low and Moderate Income Population (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-43
Figure 18 Median Household Income (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-44
Figure 19 Low to Moderate Income Population (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-45

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 20Figure 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 21Figure 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 22Figure 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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-46
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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-47
Figure 20 Areas of High Poverty (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-48
Figure 21 Poverty Status (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-49
Figure 22 Neighborhood Segregation (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-50
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-51

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.73 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. 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.

RCAAs have not been studied extensively, nor has a standard definition been published by HCD or HUD.

HCD has created a metric to identify RCAAs by analyzing the total White population for each census tract and comparing it to the average percentage of total White populations for all census tracts within a given Council of Government (COG) region. This compared value is referred to as the Location Quotient (LQ). For example, a census tract with an LQ of 1.5 has a percentage of total White population that is 1.5 times higher than the average percentage of total White population within the COG region. HCD identifies RCAAs as census tracts with an LQ of more than 1.25 and a median income 1.5 times higher than the COG AMI (or

1.5x the State AMI, whichever is lower).

3.5.3 Regional Trends
There are several RCAAs in Napa County, which are primarily located in more rural areas of the county.

Most of the RCAAs are concentrated along the western portion of the county with several RCAAs located within the northwest part of the City of Napa as well as in the rural areas northeast of the City of Napa. shows RCAAs in Napa County.

The population of Napa County is predominantly White, with the highest concentration of White residents residing in rural areas of the county. Figure 23Figure 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
There are no RCAAs identified within St. Helena. However, 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. 73 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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-52
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 26Figure 26 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 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.74 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.75 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.
74 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 75 Ong, Paul and Evelyn Blumenberg, “Job Accessibility and Welfare Usage: Evidence from Los Angeles.” UCLA Department of Policy Studies, (1998).

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-53

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.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-54
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-55
Figure 23 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-56
Figure 24 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-57
Figure 25 Predominant White Population (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-58
Figure 26 Predominant Populations and Median Household Income (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-59
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. Sections of the Vine trail have also been completed in American Canyon and Calistoga.

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.76 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 foot77. 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 27Figure 27, 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. 76 https://alltransit.cnt.org/
77 https://www.walkscore.com/
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-60
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-61
Figure 27 Walkability Index (St. Helena)
Source: National Walkability Index, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-62
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-63

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.78 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 28Figure 28 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.79 Figure 29Figure 29Figure 28Figure 28 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 78 The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics. 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
79 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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-64
from the ACS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC), and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.

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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-65
Figure 28 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-66
Figure 29 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-67

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 30Figure 30 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 31Figure 31 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 32Figure 32 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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-68
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-69
Figure 30 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-70
Figure 31 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-71
Figure 32 Job Proximity Index (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-72
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-73

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.80 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 33Figure 33 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 34Figure 34 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 35Figure

35. 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 80 HUD, 2021. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/ Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-74
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 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 36Figure 36 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 37Figure 37 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 38Figure 38 shows areas of the county where homeowners overpay for housing, Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-75
which is most prevalent in the urban areas of the county as well as the northwest and southeast areas of the county.

3.7.3 Local Trends
Housing cost burden among renters is widespread in St. Helena. Figure 39Figure 39 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 7Table 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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-76
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-77
Figure 33 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Napa County) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-78
Figure 34 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-79
Figure 35 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (St. Helena) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-80
Figure 36 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-81
Figure 37 Overpayment By Renters (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-82
Figure 38 Overpayment By Homeowners (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-83
Figure 39 Overpayment By Renters (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-84
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-85
Table 7 Housing Cost Burden of Lower-Income Households (2014-2018) Household by Type,
Income, and Housing
Problem Renters Percent Owners Percent
Total
Households
Extremely Low-Income
(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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-86

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 41Figure 41 shows the approximate break down by age of housing units.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-87
Figure 40 Overpayment By Homeowners (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-88
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-89
Figure 41 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 8Table 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 41Figure 41, approximately 79 percent of the city’s housing stock was built prior to 1990, potentially requiring minor repairs and modernization improvements. 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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-90
Table 8Table 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.

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 three or more bedrooms, resulting in overcrowding.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-91
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 non-traditional 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 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 42Figure 42, 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 9Table 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 five percent of households in St. Helena are overcrowded, compared to 6 percent for the county as a whole. As shown in Table 9Table 9,a higher proportion of renter households are overcrowded than owned households in St. Helena. Figure 43Figure 43 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-92
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 three percent of White households.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-93
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-94
Figure 42 Overcrowded Households (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-95
Figure 43 Overcrowded Households (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-96

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.81

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 44Figure 44 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 45Figure 45. 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. 81 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-97
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-98
Figure 44 Sensitive Communities (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-99
Figure 45 Sensitive Communities (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-100

4. Local Area of Knowledge
The AFFH analysis identified the eastern portion of St. Helena as generally experiencinges 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. Overall, the eastern portion of the city is a moderate resource area, the same as the rest of the city. Some factors that could play into the trends seen in the data could be the location of existing retirement and older adult living facilities. The population living within these communities are, many time, fixed income and more often single-headed households. In addition, most of the city’s high density land use and housing is located in this eastern portion of the city, which tends to be the housing type most affordable to lower income residents and single-parent households. As part of the Housing Element, the City is committing to improving the number of affordable units city-wide. In addition, with the recently adopted General Plan, the city envisions the redevelopment of Main Street within the eastern portion of the city with new, mixed-use development to increase economic opportunities and investments in this area.

4.1 Local Actions and Policy Efforts
In 2018, the City funded the 2018 St. Helena Housing Update Report, a housing analysis study that identified contributing factors to housing challenges in St. Helena. The report identified that residents believe new housing development primarily occurs east of Highway 29, however according to the report the majority of new construction was located west of Highway 29. In addition, the report also identified community opposition as a challenge to housing development in the city, leading to delays and increased project costs. Community members often desire to maintain the rural character of the city and are very concerned with how new development will impact surrounding neighborhoods.82 In October of 2020, the City Council adopted the Resolution 2020-105: Affirming that Discrimination and Systemic Racism Constitute A Public Health Crisis Causing Disparities in Mental Wellbeing, Language Access, Housing, Economic Development, Health, and Criminal Justice Experience, and Reaffirming Its Commitment to Advancing Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in the City. This resolution commits the City to erasing barriers to opportunities to minority populations, including housing. The Staff Report to City Council for Resolution 2020-105 recommends actions to address racial equity and social justice in the community, including providing Spanish translation for City Council and Planning Commission meetings, provide all City communication in Spanish and reviewing adopted by other cities that promote inclusivity and access to affordable housing.
82 2018. St. Helena Housing and Community Report.
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3395/staff_rep ort-white_paper.pdf
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-101
The City also prepared a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategy to outline the City’s efforts towards diversity, equity and inclusion, and social justice. The strategy includes actions such as creating a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee to discuss topics, including housing and racial justice, and offering live Spanish interpretation for regular and special City Council and Planning Commission meetings. The City continues to provide Spanish interpretation for City Council and Planning Commission meetings.

4.14.2 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).

4.1.14.2.1 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.

4.1.24.2.2 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.

4.1.34.2.3 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 connects the City of Napa and the City of Calistoga where connections to destinations further north or south can be made. Residents who live or work in St. Helena have limited options for traveling via public transit, potentially limiting their housing options.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-102

4.1.44.2.4 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 46Figure 46, 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.

Figure 46 Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files
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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-103

4.2.5 Opposition to New Development
According to the 2018 St. Helena Housing Update Report, city residents are “deeply concerned with maintaining the rural character of town” and therefore residentslocals generally oppose housing projects that are perceived to changing neighborhood character. Many previous and ongoing multi-family housing projects have been met with comments and concern from community members regarding environmental impacts, such as increases in water demand and increases in traffic as well as impacts to existing neighborhoods and community character.

4.2.6 Location of New Housing
SomeMany residents of the city feel the city is segregated between east and west of Main Street, where the west side of the city consists of a greater percentage of White, affluent residents while the east side of the city has a greater percentage of non-White and low-income residents. In addition, residents have stated that the multi-family housing in the city is located in the eastern area. According to the 2018 St. Helena Housing Update Report, the majority of new construction over the last 10 years has been west of Highway

29.83 The Magnolia Oaks housing development consists of 44 multi-family housing units, 10 of which are affordable to low-income residents. While this project is located just west of Highway 299, it is still on the eastern half of the city.other recently multi-family projects have been constructed on the east along McCorkle Avenue. The City is in the process of adopting a new Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the 2040 General Plan, which would permit duplexes and triplexes within the MR District (see Program H-N).

This would create additional housing choices and affordability levels in the MR Districts on the western side of the city. In addition, Programs H-BB, H-EE, and H-XX would implement placemaking strategies to outreach and work with the more diverse and older populations living in the east due to the historic development patterns.

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.

According to the 2022 TCAC Opportunity Map, the entire city is considered an area of moderate resource.

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 83 Erica Skylar. 2018. St. Helena Housing Update Report. https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3395/staff_rep ort-white_paper.pdf
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-104
portion of the city is designated as low resource, indicating residents in these areas have low access to positive economic, educational, and environmental outcomes has a higher percentage of non-White residents, lower household median income., higher percentage of cost burden among renters and owners, and less positive economic and environmental outcomes compared to the rest of the city. TheThese demographic And socio-economic patterns 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map maps influenced the locations of potential lower income sites in the city.

5.2 Improved Conditions
According to the 2022 TCAC Opportunity Map, the entire city is considered an area of moderate resource.

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 38 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 53 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. Sites that can accommodate most of the lower income units are located in the western and southern part of the city, which has a higher household median income and more positive economic and environmental outcomes. Approximately 38 percent of the total proposed units and 36 percent of the proposed lowerincome units planned for in the sites inventory (Appendix B) are located in the eastern part of the city,, with sites accounting for 36 percent of the proposed lower income unitswhich has a higher percentage of lowand moderate-income populations and non-White residents located in low resource areas, 15 percent located in moderate resource areas, and 49 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..

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 47Figure 47 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 areasthe city. 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.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-105

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 areaeastern part of the city, which has a higher percentage of non-White residents and cost burden and lower economic and environmental outcomes.

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. , both of which are considered moderate resourceThe 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 the eastern areas are scattered on vacant and underutilized parcels to facilitate the development of lower- and 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.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-106

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.84 The AFFH Data Viewer does not have data on Housing Choice Vouchers for St. Helena. 84 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 #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
A-107
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-108
Figure 47 Location of Sites Inventory in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Figure 47 Location of Sites Inventory in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-109
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-110

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 10Table 10.

Table 10 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 H-XX)
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-E,

H-H, H-I, H-J, H-W, H-LL)
· 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-GG)
· Development of affordable housing on
City-owned sites (Program H-V)
· Provide by right approvals for multifamily housing projects that meet objective design and development
standards (Program H-V)
· At least once annually, provide an
information on accessory dwelling units
(ADUs) in the city, and target outreach

to residents in the high resource
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023 A-111
southwest of Main Street and northeast
of Pratt Street (Program H-Q)
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-V)
· Encourage construction and renting of
ADUs in high resource areas to increase
supply of variety of housing types in the
city (Programs H-I, H-R)
· Prioritize CIP in low resource areas the
eastern part of the city (Program H-WW)
· Revise inclusionary housing ordinance
for more lower income units, realistic inlieu fees, workforce housing, and more on-site housing requirements (Program
H-F)
· Invest in public infrastructure projects in
low and moderate resource areas that
improve the quality of life for residents
(Program H-WW)
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-WW)
· 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 HWW)

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
B-1
Appendix B:

Comments on the Public Review Draft 2023-2031
Housing Element Update
The City received multiple comment letters on the Public Review Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Update.

Comments on the Public Review Draft were received between June 29, 2022, and July 30, 2022. Key changes in response to public input include revisions to various programs and the addition of a new site in the sites inventory.

Response to Comments
In response to these comments, the City has made a number of revisions to the Public Review Draft Housing Elementdraft, including:
• 1: Policy Document – Program H-Y: Corrected spelling error and added Voorhees Circle (now program H-Z).
• 1: Policy Document – Policy HE 2.5: Revised language for clarity. • 1: Policy Document – Program H-C: Urban Limit Line: Deleted program. • 1: Policy Document – Program H-J: Updated funding sources to include State and Federal programs and grants (now program H-I).
• 1: Policy Document – Program H-M: Zoning to Facilitate Higher Density Housing: Revised for clarity (now program H-N).
• 1: Policy Document – Program H-R: Affordability Requirements for ADU Incentives: Updated text to specify that a regulatory agreement is required (now program H-S). • 5. Housing Conditions – Key Findings: Added source information for the data presented in the key finding related to Cost Burden
• 5. Housing Conditions – Physical Housing Conditions: Estimated the number of homes in need of rehabilitation.
• 6. Housing Market Conditions – Affordable Home Purchase Prices: Corrected broken references to Table 15.
• 6. Housing Market Conditions – For-Sale Housing: Revised note on Table 15 to clarify that 2021 data was used.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update HCD Review Draft, September 2022Revised HCD Draft, February 2023Public Hearing Draft, April 2023
B-2
• 11. Housing Resources – Pending and Approved Projects: Revised Table 36 to identify the existing unit at 963 Pope Street as deed restricted.
• 11. Housing Resources – Remaining RHNA: Revised Table 37 to fix incorrect income categorization for 963 Pope Street.
• 11: Housing Resources – Residential Sites Inventory: Added 620 McCorkle (APN 009-502-003) to the available sites inventory.
• 11. Housing Resources – Pending and Approved Projects: Revised Table 36 to identify the existing unit at 963 Pope Street as deed restricted.
• 11. Housing Resources – Remaining RHNA: Revised Table 37 to fix incorrect income categorization for 963 Pope Street.
• 11: Housing Resources – Residential Sites Inventory: Added 620 McCorkle (APN 009-502-003) to the available sites inventory.

Agenda Item #10.1.

P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org

July 26, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, City of St. Helena FROM: Jennifer La Liberte, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Housing Element Update, 2023-2031, Public Review Draft The Board of Directors of Our Town St Helena and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Housing Element Update (HEU).

General Comments
Pg 1-4 Potential Funding Sources – There does not appear to be consistency among the potential funding sources for the objectives. Some programs list specific potential sources (though the lists should be expanded) and some list only staff time. It appears this could be related to how current programs are funded. Federal, state, county, local, and private funding sources would seem appropriate for each objective that requires development and construction funding. Also, if detailed funding sources are to be included, then US Department of Agriculture Rural Development should be added.

Pg. 1-6 Throughout the document (beginning on page 1-6), much of the cited data is outdated and does not accurately reflect today’s market conditions. For example, the HEU states “typical contract rent for an apartment in St. Helena was $1,470 in 2019,” and to avoid being cost burdened, a renter would need to earn $59,160.

According to the Napa County 2021 Affordable Housing Needs Report (May 2021) produced by the California Housing Partnership, the average asking monthly rent in Napa County is $1,948 and renters need to earn $77,916 to avoid being cost burdened. Since St. Helena tends to be at the top of the market for Napa County, it’s safe to assume (and observe) that those figures are even higher. Marcus & Millchap publishes a quarterly Bay Area multi-family market report that identifies mean rents by county by unit type which would be more accurate even if not specific to St Helena. We know that a typical two-bedroom market rate unit in good condition is renting for $2,100-$2,650 plus utilities, and three-bedrooms in very good condition are at approximately $3,000 per month.

Pg.1-11 How were the specific quantified objectives derived under each of the programs and how do they relate to each other? There appears to be significant overlap in Agenda Item #10.1.

P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org

these objectives. Example: farmworker housing and very low-income housing could be the same housing; senior housing could be incorporated into a lowincome project. The Quantified Objectives Summary Table on 1-40 page provides the totals but not the logic in how the quantities were broken out.

Pg. 1-17 “The City will explore possible incentives for building attached market rate housing units for rent and for sale” which is great, but it ought not take five years to explore incentives. And what action comes after exploration? Similarly, why will it take four years to study potential modifications to the Zoning Code to facilitate higher density housing, etc., when the City is already updating the Zoning Code and the HE and should be fairly versed in what changes are needed? Is it possible to make incremental changes? For example, an immediate step the City could take is to remove the conditional use permit requirement in multi-family zones to streamline the process for developers.

changed hands are also at-risk for conversion.

Pp. 2-23 Beginning on page 2-23, Joe is Joe McGrath, Jordan is Jordan Bentley, Mary Stevenson is Mary Stephenson, John is John Sales, Jennifer Le Liberte is Jennifer La Liberte, and Steve is Steve Goldfarb.

for Napa County, the comma is in the wrong place.

these units which comprise 17.4 percent of the housing stock. If the rental vacancy rate is 3.1 percent and ownership vacancy rate is 5.3 percent, what constitutes the delta (17.4 minus 3.1 minus 5.3)?

40 to 80 years old correlate with the City’s preservation goals?

which is providing listing prices, not value. Based on current listings in St. Helena, $1.6 million is at the lower end of the range. Local realtors could provide updated Agenda Item #10.1.

P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org

MLS data which would be timelier and more accurate than Zillow. Also, within this section it is not clear whether existing deed-restricted units are included in totals of rent/homeownership units and monthly cost. It could be that these incomequalified units are affecting the total values. Could this be made more explicit?

sentence and middle of the second sentence that don’t make sense.

figures for 2022, so the footnote to the table should be adjusted accordingly.

a very low and low income; OTSH purchased in June 2021 and recorded 55-year deed restrictions. Also, Grayson Apartments were funded privately through the inclusionary requirements met by 632 McCorkle and references to tax credits, AHP, etc. should be removed. This is an important point because the housing crisis here will not be solved exclusively through non-profits.

restricted and should be noted.

should be moved to “lower” income.

Policies
HE 2.5 “Allow duplexes in all low-density residential zones” – please clarify whether this allowance is by right and not with a conditional use permit.

HE 4.8 “Give preference to projects providing workforce housing affordable to up to 140 percent of the AMI” – there doesn’t appear to be an implementation program associated with this policy. What preference would be given, and would it be at the expense of another affordability level?
Implementation Programs
H-A, H-NN “Concentration of sites for affordable housing” – OTSH supports the City’s efforts to ensure affordable housing sites are identified geographically throughout the city. But we caution that land is scarce, and large sites rarely become available that are suitable for multi-unit housing, and, most that do, tend to be located east of Main Street. We support incentivizing affordable housing wherever it can get Agenda Item #10.1.

P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org

built, and don’t support the City prioritizing Affordable Housing Trust Fund dollars for affordable projects in the western portion of the city at the expense of projects in the eastern portion.

H-C OTSH believes we should be planning for a more sustainable and less cardependent future. We should be exploring opportunities to increase infill density and expand 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, and we believe a housing task force could explore how to unlock the potential here. Expanding the Urban Limit Line should be the last option as it runs a great risk of negatively impacting what makes this such a great and desirable place to live with vibrant wine and tourism industries.

H-D Water and sewer access should be prioritized for both affordable and missing middle housing. Also, please define “missing middle” in terms of Area Median Income. The water neutrality requirement should be eliminated for any attached affordable and missing middle housing. The City could consider requiring other trade-offs such as no-irrigation landscaping or rain capture systems.

H-J “ADU Workforce Housing Incentive Program” -- broaden the potential funding sources to include grants, state and federal programs. Also, consider working with the County Assessor to allow a property tax reduction on the larger property in exchange for 30-year a deed restriction on an ADU, with proper monitoring to ensure compliance.

H-M OTSH believe the City should immediately remove the Conditional Use Permit requirement on MDR Zoning. At a minimum, it should be removed for any parcel identified in the HE as a Housing Opportunity Site. Discretionary review is the toehold for opposition to these projects and makes developers wary of taking the significant financial risk that is required for this type of development. Also, consider allowing deed restrictions for missing middle projects (as defined by the City) and in exchange grant fee waivers and eliminate the housing impact fee requirement.

H-P We should not incentivize ADUs beyond existing state mandates unless they have a deed restriction and rental occupancy requirements in exchange. While this may be implied it isn’t clearly stated.

Agenda Item #10.1.

P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org

H-R, H-DD “Affordability requirements for ADU incentives; reduced fees for affordable housing” – these should include a reference to the mechanism that will restrict affordability (i.e., affordable housing regulatory agreement).

H-S “Illegal housing units” – these types of policies or programs can be double edged as they often end up displacing households that cannot afford to live in legal units.

Consider a companion program that sees to support households displaced by this program.

H-U Under Objectives – “Support the development of 3 multi-unit housing projects….support the development of five infill projects….” What does “support” mean? As written it implies a maximum the City will “support” during the planning period.

H-?? Under Goal 3, Conservation of Existing Housing – consider adding an implementation program: “The City will work to obtain CDBG or other available funds to create an ‘Affordable Housing Conservation Fund’ so units can be acquired quickly when they hit the market and preserved at affordable levels.” H-Z “Vacation Rentals” – the City should consider prohibiting vacation rentals in certain zoning districts if it hasn’t already.

H-FF “Affordable Homeownership” – the City should work with the County’s Proximity Housing Program to provide down payment assistance to St. Helena first-time home buyers. If the County is amenable to working with the City to create a funding set-aside for St. Helena, the City could then market the program or work with others to do so.

H-II “Housing Coordinator” – this is an immediate need, and a specified time frame is encouraged rather than “ongoing”. It would be preferable to do this as a City of St Helena position, but a shared position is better than none. OTSH would prefer the City consider a Housing / Economic Development FTE rather than a lower level, part-time Housing Coordinator. Also, meeting with partner jurisdictions twice during the 13-year planning cycle does not appear to be sufficient.

Proposed Sites
Site maps It would be helpful to add a north arrow to the aerials.

Agenda Item #10.1.

P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org

develop 36 to 50 units.”

Housing Opportunity Sites
Adams Street What is the rationale for the size and placement of the Opportunity Site on the Adams Street property?
709 McCorkle This site was recently purchased and is intended to function as an estate compound. It has a low to zero probability of being developed for affordable housing.
741 McCorkle This house was recently renovated with significant capital improvements and is unlikely to be further developed in the next HE cycle.
1637 Spring This site has recently been purchased for the intent of turning it into employee housing.

Proposed site We encourage the City to add 620 McCorkle Avenue (APN 009-502-003-000) as a “key housing site”. This 0.76-acre site is zoned MDR and is currently on the market. Including it as a key housing site would eliminate the requirement for a conditional use permit and be consistent with the goal to remove barriers to development of multi-unit housing.

Conclusion
OTSH commends the City for its work on this document. Realizing that the HEU is a mandated document that needs to follow strict guidelines, we hope the City will also create an implementation plan that identifies measures, cost analysis, staff and funding resources, and time frames for meeting the goals contained herein.

Agenda Item #10.1.

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 #10.1.

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 #10.1.

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 #10.1.

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 #10.1.

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 #10.1.

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 #10.1.

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 #10.1.

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 #10.1.

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 #10.1.

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 #10.1.

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 #10.1.

4 620 McCorkle:  Per prior inputs, this site should be added to the Housing Opportunity Site and Key Housing Opportunity Site list.

Agenda Item #10.1.

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 #10.1.

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 #10.1.

Saint Helena Housing Coalition, Inc.

PO Box 988
Saint Helena, CA 94574
July 25, 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:

Again, we would like to thank you for leading this sixth Housing Element 2023-2031 document incredibly rich document full of quite important and relevant data.

However, we have some considerable concerns over facts stated and conclusions reach:

Issue #1:

In this report you state “The Housing Element must also identify adequate residential sites available for a variety of housing types for all income levels; provide assistance in developing adequate housing to meet the needs of lowand moderate-income households; address governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing; conserve and improve the condition of the existing stock of affordable housing; and promote housing opportunities for all persons”. (Aaron Hecock-Report to the City Council & Planning Commission Meeting -21 July 2022, page 4) (Emphasis added).

Response #1A:

Not being lawyers we referred to recognized authorities on the words contained in the above Issue #1.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Ensure – “We define ensure as "to make sure, certain, or safe" and one sense of insure, "to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions," is quite similar. But insure has the additional meaning "to provide or obtain insurance on or for," which is not shared by ensure.” Certain – Ascertained; precise; identified; definitive; clearly known; unambiguous; or in law, capable of being identified or made known, without liability or to mistake or ambiguity, from data already given.”
Realistic- means “based upon what is real rather than on what is wanted or hoped for” Real – means “having objective independent existence; not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory; being precisely what the name means; occurring or existing in actuality” Black’s Legal Dictionary:

Adequate means “Sufficient; proportionate; equally sufficient; equal to what is required; suitable to the case or occasion; satisfactory”
Availability Means “This phrase, among mercantile men, is a term well understood to be anything which can readily be converted into money; but it is not necessarily or primarily money.” Agenda Item #10.1.

Ready means “Prepared for what one is about to do or experience; equipped or supplied with what is needed for some act or event; prepared for immediate movement or action”(Emphasis added) Demonstrate means “to prove indubitably”
Indubitable Proof “Evidence of which is not only found creditable but is of such weight and directness as to make out the facts alleged beyond a doubt.” Must “This word, like the word ‘shall’ is primarily of mandatory effect.” Based upon the above definitions SHHC is perplexed as to how the Housing Element can, in good conscience, or on any legal basis include 601 Pope Street or 1837 Spring Street as both owners have stated that they are not interested.

I just spoke to the owner who has been a dear friend of our families for 37 years and she stated ,“No one contacted me and further had no interest in allowing their back acreage to be developed into ‘affordable’ housing.”? Response #1B:

During the public comment section of the July 21m, 2022 2023-31 Zoom Housing Element, Rick Crebs, from SHHC, raised the issue of financial feasibility of Sites #4, 905 Main Street is stating “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”.

Similar financial analysis was also offered on Site #7 821 Pope Street, (land costs of $100,000 per unit); Site #9 1447 & 1515 Spring Street, (land costs of $139,583 per unit).

Based upon that information provided during the Housing element Zoom meeting of Thursday, July 21, 2022, a question was directed by a city council member to the city’s staff relative to the property valuations statements raised by Rick Crebs of SHHC on valuations attributed to Zillow. The response was questioned of the authenticity of the Zillow valuations. This seems odd in that the Housing Element report refers to Zillow eight (8) times as the authority on real estate valuations.

It was further stated that grants or low interest loans would off set the high land costs.

Please allow SHHC to provide a current financial analysis as present in SHHC’s Offer to Develop 88 Units (using

2.3 acres at the East end of the Adams Street city owned parcel).

Use of Grants: Adams Street as an example:

Total Construction Costs $43,116,112 or average of $489,956 per unit (Leased, not sold land) Funding necessary to complete this project: (Projected) City/County $2,000,000 (4.4%)
Other Grants $32,337,084 (75.0%)*
Mortgage or Bond $ 7,054,364 (16.40%)
Total $43,116,112 100% (rounded)
*The largest grants that SHHC has been able to discover are from the California Department of Housing Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grants which currently has a maximum grant amount of Agenda Item #10.1.

$35mm, so the Adams Street project comes close to it. This information is supplied to illustrate the extreme difficulty present in realistically financing the Saint Helena community to provide the “Must” in the RHNA requirement.

Issue #2:

In this report you state “The issue of owner consent to being included on the housing opportunity sites list has come up on several occasions. Being listed as a housing opportunity site in no way terminates or otherwise affects existing uses on-site. Furthermore, there are currently no legislative or other means to compel a private property owner in this process, meaning we cannot force or otherwise require that they build housing. That said, owner consent is not a requirement for inclusion in the housing opportunity sites inventory (Government Code 65583.2).

The inventory is to show that there are suitable sites to meet the City’s RHNA and the programs are there to help housing developers to make that happen. Designating sites as suitable for housing falls within the City's authority to regulate land uses. If the Housing Element were to designate an already developed site.” Response to #2:

Mr. Hecock, it is true that California government Code does not include language requiring “owners Consent”. but, by the same logic, it does not exclude requiring the “owners’ consent.” This, it would seem that your comment is non-responsive. Further, Code 65583.2 refers to Government code 65583 which, in part, states “(3) An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for development during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. (Emphasis added).

Further, in referring to the word definitions provided above, that the proposed Saint Helena Housing 2023-2031 Document on a factually basis fails to meet with any degree of accuracy of the meanings of the authenticated meaning of the words; Adequate, Available, Demonstratable, Ensure, and Must.

In closing, such vagueness in the prior Housing Element Reports may have been tolerated in the past. However, our town is critically deficient in sufficient “affordable” housing for all AMI’s. The fact that so many are required to commute to work in the Upper Valley each day clearly contributes to unnecessary Green Housing Gas (GHG) emissions to say nothing of the cost to commute which further contributes multiple well vetted studies that conclude that the majority of those renting are cost burdened. Many in the 50-60% of household income! Lastly, the lack of a strategy to affirmatively address Saint Helena’s housing crisis is to deny, or turn its back, on its pledge to work towards a policy of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Our town can no longer rely upon the old “Three Card Monty Trick” in addressing the statutory issues the Housing Element requires.

SHHC’s First Suggestion:

The city should consider removing Sites 4 (905 Mains Street, Ste 7 (821 Pope Street, Ste 9 1447 & b1515 Springs Street as being financially unrealistic due to associated land costs and instead revise the Adams Street parcel from 30 unit of Lower Income to the recommendations in the following graph:

Table 50 Summary of Housing Units (Extracted)

Lower
Income Moderate Income
Above
Moderate
Income Total
Agenda Item #10.1.

Pending Projects 0 4 88 92
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Recommended Changes Site Inventory
Site 3 (Adams Street) -22 9 76 63
Site 4 (905 Mains Street) 0 0 -5 -5
Site 7 (821 Pope Street -10 -10 0 -20
Site 9 (1447 & 1515 Spring Street) -24 0 -24 -48
Totals -56 -1 47 -10
Remaining Sites (Consolidated) Site Inventory
Sites 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11,12 152 87 244 483
Color Code -Purple-Doubtful
Red - Subtractions
Green -Additions
The results reached is close to a net neutral on units for each category of AMI housing. And the inclusion of 88 units plus 50 for the OTSG/Phelps’s project equates to a realistic 54% of Saint Helena’s 2023-31 RHNA required allocation.

SHHC’s Second Suggestion:

While draconian, the only true solution SHHC sees to the significant challenges in achieving the forthcoming coming 2023-31 RHNA Site locations allocations is for the city to firmly state that it will undertake, if necessary, Eminent Domain proceeding as in the Kelvo v. New London U.S. Supreme Court Decision.

In closing, it is time to discard the Housing Element word games from the past and boldly put forth only those Opportunity Sites that are certain and available.

Respectfully submitted:

Rick Crebs
Rick Crebs, CEO
[email protected]
707-580-0418
Ccs: Anil Comelo, City Manager
Maya DeRosa, Director of Planning
Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor
Paul Dohring, Esq. Vice Mayor
Lester hardy, Esq., City Council Member
Eric Hall, City Council Member
Anna Chouteau, City Council Member
Agenda Item #10.1.

Housing Element
Public Hearing Draft
City of St. Helena
City Council Hearing
May 9, 2023
1 Agenda Item #10.1.

2 Introductions
Jim Harnish, JD
Project Manager
Ryan Lester
Deputy Project Manager
Ryan Russell
Senior Planner
Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda:
▪ Project Overview
▪ Summary of HCD Comments on the Draft Housing Element
▪ Summary of HCD Comments on the Revised Draft Housing Element ▪ Discussion and Potential Action
3 Meeting Purpose
Agenda Item #10.1.

Project Overview
4 Agenda Item #10.1.

▪ 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 #10.1.

▪ Updates are required by State law
▪ To achieve compliance, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) must certify the Element
• HCD Review Timeline:
• Mandatory 90-day review: September-December 2022
• Mandatory 60-day review of revised draft: February-April 2023 ▪ HCD provides detailed comments following each review
▪ All HCD comments must be addressed to achieve certification 6 Why are we Updating the Element?
Agenda Item #10.1.

▪ Without a compliant Housing Element:
• The City would be ineligible for several Federal and State housing, community development, and infrastructure funding and grant programs ▪ Consequences for not updating the 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
• HCD can pursue legal action against “bad actors”
7 Why are we Updating the Element?
Agenda Item #10.1.

▪ 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
▪ 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)
8 Engagement Efforts
Agenda Item #10.1.

▪ 6
th Cycle RHNA: 256 units, divided into four income levels as follows:
• Very Low Income: 104 units (41 percent)
• Low Income: 59 units (23 percent)
• Moderate Income: 26 units (10 percent)
• Above Moderate Income: 67 units (26 percent)
▪ Due to new state law (SB 166: No Net Loss) jurisdictions should provide capacity of 15-30 percent beyond the RHNA
9 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Agenda Item #10.1.

10 Summary of Capacity to Meet the RHNA
Lower Income
Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income Total
Pending Projects 4 1 88 93
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Site Inventory
Vacant and Underutilized Sites
Inventory 203 69 35 307
Total 207 70 195 472
St. Helena RHNA plus 20% Buffer 192 31 79 302
Surplus 15 39 116 170
Agenda Item #10.1.

Summary of Comments on the
Draft Housing Element
11 Agenda Item #10.1.

12 Comments on the Draft Element
Following the 90-day review (September-December), HCD required:

A. An analysis of 5th cycle actions related to housing for residents with special housing needs
B. Additional data and analysis on several subsections of the housing needs and analyses
C. Greater specificity and more detailed actions in implementation programs
D. Additional information on how public input was required Agenda Item #10.1.

13 Significant Changes based on Comments
▪ Expanded fair housing analysis and response to public input ▪ Provided additional information to support feasibility assumptions related to nonvacant and City-owned sites
▪ Reorganized the Governmental Constraints section and added required analyses
▪ Revised programs, including:
• Updated all programs to include specific timing and accelerated timing of Program related to place-based density increases (SB 9), ADU workforce housing incentives, and removal of the growth management system • Added incentives to encourage development of non-vacant and City-owned sites, and through SB 9 lot splits
Agenda Item #10.1.

Summary of Comments on the
Revised Draft Housing Element
14 Agenda Item #10.1.

15 Comments on the Revised Draft Element
Following the 60-day review (February-April), HCD required:

1. Further data and analysis on sites in the inventory and fair housing issues

2. Expanded evaluation of constraints related to land use controls and parking requirements

3. Specific program language related to replacement housing units, City-owned sites, and permanent supportive housing

4. Additional fair housing program actions to work to overcome fair housing issues
Agenda Item #10.1.

16 Significant Changes based on Comments
▪ Expanded information on lower-income sites, non-vacant sites, infrastructure and realistic capacity calculations
▪ Expanded analysis of height and lot coverage requirements ▪ Added required language to programs related to: housing for persons with disabilities, replacement housing units requirements, Cityowned sites, and permanent supportive housing ▪ Reviewed all programs and added fair housing actions, place-based strategies, and measurable goals (metrics) and timelines (milestones) Agenda Item #10.1.

Discussion and Potential
Action
17 Agenda Item #10.1.

▪ Questions?
▪ Potential Action:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution finding:

1. That the EIR Addendum for the Housing Element Update to the City of St.

Helena 2040 General Plan is adequate and complete in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Adopt an Amendment to the General Plan (GPA 2023-001) updating the Housing Element of the General Plan for the period of 2023-2031 and incorporating it into the 2040 General Plan.
18 Discussion and Potential Action
Agenda Item #10.1.

19 Agenda Item #10.1.

20 Agenda Item #10.1.

Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 09 May 2023
Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Subject: Consideration and Proposed Resolution Adopting a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2023-002) to update the Public
Health, Safety, and Noise Element of the General Plan and adoption of an Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

CEQA
Determination:

General Plan Environmental Impact Report Addendum
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
Prepared By: Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner
Reviewed By: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director Approved By: Anil Comelo, City Manager

BACKGROUND
California State law requires that local governments prepare and adopt a General Plan, which is a blueprint for meeting the community’s long-term vision for the future. The Public Health, Safety and Noise Element (known as the Safety Element) is one of the nine Statemandated elements of the General Plan. While the City's Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element was revised and adopted in June 2019 as part of a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan, recent State of California legislation requires that Safety Elements be reviewed and updated as necessary alongside the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element update. This legislation (summarized below) requires that the Safety Element include the following:

1. Senate Bill 99 (2019). Residential Emergency Evacuation Routes. Senate Bill 99 requires all cities and counties, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2020, to update the safety element to include information identifying residential developments in any hazard area that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes.

Agenda Item #10.2.

2. Senate Bill 1241 (2012). State Responsibility Areas and Very High Fire Severity Zones. This bill requires review and update of the safety element, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2014, to address the risk of fire in state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones.

3. Senate Bill 1035 (2018). New Information on Flood, Fire, or Climate Hazards.

Senate Bill 1035 requires cities and counties to update their safety element during a housing element or local hazard mitigation plan update cycle, but not less than once every eight years, if new information on flood hazards, fire hazards, or climate adaptation or resilience is available that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element.

4. Senate Bill 379 (2015). Climate Change Adaptation. Senate Bill 379 requires all cities and counties to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the safety elements of their general plans beginning January 1, 2017. The bill requires the safety element update to include a set of goals, policies, objectives, and implementation measures based on a vulnerability assessment.

A 30-day public review and comment period for the Safety Element Update was held from September 9, 2022 through October 10, 2022. The City of St. Helena Planning Commission and City Council held a duly noticed joint public hearing to receive and provide feedback on the Draft Safety Element on September 27, 2022. Minor revisions were incorporated as appropriate into the draft document based on the limited feedback received. On May 2, 2023 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft Safety Element and General Plan EIR Addendum where they unanimously adopted a resolution recommending that they each be adopted by the City Council with the following additions to the Safety Element:

1. Add an implementation action calling for the City to develop best practices and standards for streets, roads and intersections in order to facilitate access by firefighting apparatus and to provide alternative emergency routes of ingress and egress.

2. Add an implementation action requiring landslide mitigation (i.e., netting, straw, etc.) in areas prone to landslides.

3. Add an implementation action to create connectivity standards for new developments to prevent the creation of single-access neighborhoods.

4. Add a footnote to Figure 9.10 (Fire Hazard Severity Zones) with a link to Cal Fire's Fire Hazard Severity Maps as they are in the process of being updated and will change in the future.

The recommended action should note the addition of these items should the Council find their addition appropriate. As discussed in more detail below, an underlined/strikethrough version of the document has been attached to this report which shows additions and deletions to the draft document after the public comment period.

DISCUSSION
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Agenda Item #10.2.

In considering the potential environmental impacts of the Safety Element update, the City determined that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for the 2040 General Plan update (2040 General Plan update Final EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2010042001) is of continuing informational value. The City also determined that the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) of the Safety Element update are within the scope of the previously certified Final EIR and that none of the conditions requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 exist. Based on the information and analysis provided in the attached EIR Addendum, the City determined that only minor or technical changes to the previously certified Final EIR are necessary and that that preparation of an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 is appropriate.

Safety Element Purpose
The Safety Element presents a framework for minimizing risks posed by environmental and human-caused hazards that may impact St. Helena residents’ health and welfare.

The Safety Element aims to protect St. Helena residents, workers, and visitors from negative exposure to flooding, fires, hazardous materials, air pollution, geologic and seismic hazards, disaster response, and climate change hazards. The attached update does not constitute a new document, it is a required update to the existing Chapter 9 of the City's General Plan. An underlined/strikethrough version of the document has been attached to this report which shows additions to the document underlined and deletions in strikethrough so that the reader can easily identify what was added and what was removed from the adopted version of the document. As detailed in the attached updated document, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element includes the following sections:
• 9.2 Public Health, Safety, and Noise in St. Helena. Summarizes key issues related to the public health and safety of St. Helena residents, workers, and visitors (p. 9-3).
• 9.3 Key Findings. Identifies key findings based on an existing conditions analysis (p. 9-32).
• 9.4 Goals. Defines overarching goals to guide policies and implementing actions (p. 9-36).
• 9.5 Policies and Implementing Actions. Identifies policies and implementing actions to minimize hazards and risks to life and property (p. 9-37).

In alignment with the recently adopted state legislation noted above, this update of the City’s Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element does the following:
• Includes information and a figure identifying residential developments in any hazard area that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes; • Identifies policies and implementing actions that minimize evacuation challenges for vulnerable residential development;
• Identifies evacuation routes and evacuation locations; • Updates information on flood hazard and fire hazards; Agenda Item #10.2.

• Identifies measures and policies, consistent with state legislation, that proactively mitigate wildfire risk by addressing areas within the wildland urban interface in and surrounding the City;
• In conformance with CAL FIRE’s recommendations includes up-to-date wildfire maps, historical information, and information on current wildfire mitigation efforts; • Includes a Climate Change Hazards and Vulnerability Assessment Appendix that details projected climate change impacts on the City’s vulnerable community members;
• Includes climate adaptation and resiliency strategies targeted at vulnerable populations, built assets, services, and natural and managed resources in the City.

As a result of this new analysis, new programs have been added to the Safety Element to comply with State law and ensure that local policies align with State goals to address climate hazards and hazard mitigation planning. These programs are reflected in the updated Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element found in attached to this report. The following are examples of the types of programs found in the update:

Wildfire
• PS4.L Develop and disseminate education and outreach materials to landlords, businesses, and residents regarding retrofits and home-hardening measures that align with recommendations from CAL FIRE’s Wildfire Home Retrofit Guide. • PS4.I Coordinate with Napa County Communities Firewise Foundation, the St.

Helena Fire Safe Council, and neighboring jurisdictions to implement wildfire mitigation projects proposed in the Napa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan.

Disaster Planning
• PS6.J Develop and maintain evacuation options for vulnerable populations such as young children, older adults, outdoor workers, individuals that are linguistically isolated, visitors, and individuals with access and functional needs. • PS6.L Designate and publish in Zonehaven safety zones and/or shelter-in-place locations as potential places of refuge when evacuation routes or evacuation shelters are inaccessible.

Climate Change Hazards
• PS7.G Coordinate with PG&E and Napa County Office of Emergency Services to establish backup power and emergency grid shutdown protocols that protect the City’s vulnerable populations.
• PS7.J Develop and disseminate guidelines and outreach materials on tree and plants species that are drought-tolerant and wildfire resistant to city residents and businesses.

Agenda Item #10.2.

As noted above, Senate Bill 1035 requires St. Helena and all California cities and counties to update their Safety Element with new information on flood hazards, fire hazard, and climate adaptation and resilience in conjunction with the Housing Element update cycle.

In accordance with California Government Code Section 65302(g), St. Helena is required to complete a Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment in conjunction with the update to its Safety Element. The Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment is attached to this report and is a new Appendix (Appendix B) to the General Plan (Appendix A is the City's Historic Resources Master List).

FISCAL IMPACT
Mintier Harnish's contract in the amount of $228,024 to prepare the Housing and Safety Element Updates was approved by the City Council on January 26, 2021.

Approximately 98% of the budget has been spent to date ($222,643).

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution finding:

1. That the EIR Addendum for the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Update to the City of St. Helena 2040 General Plan is adequate and complete in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Adopting an Amendment to the General Plan (GPA 2023-002) updating the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element and incorporating it into the 2040 General Plan (with the additions noted above).

ATTACHMENTS
SE Resolution
09 Public Health, Safety and Noise_2023
St.Helena Climate and Vulnerability Assessment_Appendix B_2023 Housing and Safety Elements EIR Addendum_Final April 2023 09 Public Health, Safety and Noise_2023_redline
Noise Tables_redline
Agenda Item #10.2.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 2023-002) TO UPDATE THE PUBLIC HEALTH,

SAFETY, AND NOISE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTING AN

ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Recitals

1. The St. Helena City Council adopted the St. Helena General Plan Update 2040 on May 14, 2019.

2. The 2040 General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City of St. Helena and establishes an overall framework and set of goals for city development.

3. The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element, known as the Safety Element, is a required element of the General Plan per Government Code §65302(g).

4. Amendments to Government Code §65302(g) since General Plan adoption require additional content in Safety Elements to address climate change resilience, evacuation planning, and increased risks of wildfire and flooding.

5. The City of St. Helena Planning Commission and City Council held a duly noticed joint public hearing to receive and provide feedback on the Draft Safety Element on September 27, 2022.

6. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum for the Housing and Safety Element Update to the City of St. Helena 2040 General Plan and found it adequate and complete in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

7. A public notice was published in the Napa Valley Register in compliance with state and local law.

8. The City of St. Helena Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Draft Safety Element on May 2, 2023 where they approved a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the General EIR Addendum and Safety Element Update.

9. The City Council of the City of St. Helena, State of California, considered the Draft Safety Element, General Plan EIR Addendum, staff report, and all testimony, written and spoken, at a duly noticed public hearing on May 9, 2023.

Resolution
A. In making the findings in this Resolution, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all of the documents referenced in this Resolution and the associated staff reports, City files for this matter, correspondence, presentations and other materials.

Agenda Item #10.2.

B. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AS FOLLOWS:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.

2. The City Council received an Addendum to the St. Helena General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2010042001). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, the Addendum evaluated whether the project’s environmental impacts are covered by and within the scope of the General Plan EIR and substantiated the City’s determination that the Safety Element update policies and programs are within the scope of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the Housing Element update does not require subsequent action under CEQA, and the Addendum Evaluation, in conjunction with the EIR, adequately analyzes potential environmental impacts.

3. The City Council adopts a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2023-002) to update the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element of the General Plan and adopts an Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on _________, 2023, by the following vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: _____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: _____
Council Member Lester Hardy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #10.2.

public health, safety,
and noise
chapter nine
Agenda Item #10.2.

9-2 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
The Public Health, Safety and
Noise element identifies goals,
policies, and implementing
actions to minimize risks to life
and property associated with
natural hazards.

9.1 Purpose of the Element
The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element presents a framework for minimizing risks posed by environmental and human-caused hazards that may impact St. Helena residents’ health and welfare. The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element aims to protect St. Helena residents, workers, and visitors from negative exposure to flooding, fires, hazardous materials, air pollution, geologic, seismic, and climate change hazards.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element includes the following sections. • 9.2 Public Health, Safety, and Noise in St. Helena. Summarizes key issues related to the public health and safety of St. Helena residents, workers, and visitors (p. 9-3).
• 9.3 Key Findings. Identifies key findings based on an existing conditions analysis (p. 9-32).
• 9.4 Goals. Defines overarching goals to guide policies and implementing actions (p. 9-36).
• 9.5 Policies and Implementing Actions. Identifies policies and implementing actions to minimize hazards and risks to life and property (p. 9-37). 1 introduction
2 land use and growth
management
3 economic sustainability
4 public facilities and
services
5 circulation
6 historic resources
7 community design
8 open space and
conservation
9 public health, safety,
and noise
10 climate change
11 housing
12 parks and recreation
13 arts, culture, and
entertainment
Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-3
9 public health, safety, and noise

9.2 Public Health, Safety, and Noise in St. Helena
St. Helena is surrounded by natural beauty, hillsides, vineyards, and waterways.

While these natural features are great assets for the community, they can present risks due to flood, fire, geologic, seismic and climate change. In addition, humancaused risks, such as hazardous materials, air pollution, and unhealthy noise levels can also pose risks to community health and safety. Effective planning to prepare for and mitigate the adverse effects of these natural and human-caused risks can help ensure that St. Helena maintains a high level of safety for its residents, workers, and visitors. Following is a discussion of the steps St. Helena takes to prepare for these risks, the potential impacts the various risks could have on St.

Helena and ways for the City to minimize or prepare for these potential impacts.

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
Identification of public safety services in the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element is important because these services are critical to the property and life savings effort required during an emergency and must be identified to comply with Government Code 65302. The Napa County Fire Department and the City of St. Helena Fire Department provide fire and emergency services for St.

Helena. The City is served by the following fire stations that have the capability to respond to medical emergencies, rescues, structural fire, and wildfire: Napa County Station #26, located at 3535 Saint Helena Highway in Calistoga, the Napa County Station #12, located at 7401 Solano Ave in Yountville, the Napa County Volunteer Station #15, located at 1989 Highway 29 in Rutherford, the Napa County Volunteer Station #21, located at 680 Sanitarium Road, and the St. Helena Fire Station, located at 1480 Main St in St. Helena. Additional public safety services are provided by the St. Helena Police Department. The St. Helena Police Department is located at 1480 Main Street in St. Helena.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
The State of California requires all municipal governments to prepare and plan for potential emergencies including natural and human caused events. St. Helena seeks to ensure the safety of its residents, services, infrastructure, businesses, and buildings during an emergency scenario.

Agenda Item #10.2.

9-4 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
Emergency preparedness efforts in St. Helena include:
• Implementation of risk reductions measures identified in the Napa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP).
• Implementation of emergency operation protocols as included in Napa County Emergency Operations Plan.
• Continued coordination of evacuation management planning through Zonehaven, in conjunction with the Napa County Sheriff Department, Napa County Office of Emergency Services, CAL FIRE, and neighboring jurisdictions. • Education and training of residents on emergency response management and preparedness as part of the Napa Valley Community Emergency Response (CERT) program.
• Upgrades to structures and infrastructure to comply with building and fire codes.
• Maintaining a cooling center at the St Helena Library (1492 Library Lane) during extreme heat events.

The City is actively engaged in local and regional emergency planning efforts. St.

Helena is a participating jurisdiction of the Napa County MJHMP, which includes a hazard mitigation assessment and mitigation actions for Napa County and participating jurisdictions. Additionally, the City is involved in the development and regular updates to the Napa County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan, which describes emergency operation planning processes and protocols for Napa County jurisdictions These efforts combine with an actively engaged and educated public to support emergency preparedness for the City.

CRITICAL FACILITIES
Critical facilities are structures and institutions necessary for a community to respond to and recover from emergencies. Identification of them is important because critical facilities must continue to operate during and following a disaster to reduce the severity of impacts and accelerate recovery. They are essential to the health and welfare of residents and are relied upon to recover following hazard events. Such facilities have been identified in the Napa County MJHMP and several are located in St. Helena or in close proximity to the City.

They include police stations, fire stations, hospitals, elder care facilities, schools, regional emergency services, critical water facilities, and governmental buildings.

Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-5
9 public health, safety, and noise
Additionally, facilities such as natural gas pipelines and the transportation system are identified as critical infrastructure, which enable buildings, residences, and the transport of good and services to remain functional. These critical facilities are identified in Figure 9.1.

EMERGENCY EVACUATION & ISOLATED ST. HELENA

NEIGHBORHOODS
Evacuation routes are used to move residents out of impacted areas before or during a disaster or hazard event. St. Helena’s major evacuation routes include State Route 29 and the Silverado Trail, which lies east of and directly parallel to State Route 29. In addition to identification of these major routes, St. Helena is required by Government Code Section 65302 (g)(5) (as amended by Senate Bill 99) to update the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element to include information identifying residential developments in any hazard area identified in the safety element that do not have at least two emergency evacuation access roads.

Identifying residential developments without access to two emergency evacuation access roads allows the City to identify opportunities to improve evacuation capacity and connectivity for vulnerable neighborhoods. Figure 9.2 identifies residential neighborhoods that have a single access road for entry and exit (i.e., roads that connect to a collector or arterial road by only a single route).

There are currently two neighborhoods in the City that have been identified as having only a single access road. The neighborhood identified off College Avenue is partially located in the 500-Year flood zone, Bell Canyon Dam failure inundation area, and the high and medium liquefaction susceptibility area. The neighborhood identified off Vineyard Avenue is within the medium liquefaction susceptibility area. These neighborhoods are most vulnerable during evacuation scenarios and pose significant logistical challenges. As a result, policy and implementing actions have been developed to minimize evacuation challenges for these specific neighborhoods.

Agenda Item #10.2.

9 public health, safety, and noise
9-6 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-7
9 public health, safety, and noise
Agenda Item #10.2.

9-8 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise

FLOODING
The Napa River and some of its tributaries are prone to flooding, which poses a risk for people and structures in adjacent parts of the Napa Valley. The Napa River flows are largely influenced by precipitation. The peak flows generally occur in January, February, and March. Some of the worst flooding in the immediate area of St. Helena has occurred in December and April, especially in and around the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park, which is near the confluence of Sulphur Creek and the Napa River. The area experienced significant flooding in 1986, 1995, 1997, and 2005 with extensive property loss.

Flood hazards also exist in the York Creek and Sulphur Creek Watersheds in St.

Helena. During the 2005 New Year’s Eve storm event, flooding from York Creek significantly impacted residential and industrial properties, including buildings located on the properties of Beringer Winery and the Culinary Institute. The Beringer water treatment plant flooded and ponds overflowed into the creek. In addition, the creek flooded vineyards on both sides of its corridor, downstream of State Route 29 to the Napa River.

Flood hazards in the Sulphur Creek watershed are due primarily to channel bed aggradation in the lower reach where gravel mining was historically conducted.

Sulphur Creek continues to supply and deposit substantial amounts of sediment in this reach. Consequently, the increased volume of sediment currently stored in the channel decreases the volume available for floodwater, potentially causing an increased flood hazard locally and within the City of St. Helena. Further study needs to be done of the Sulphur Creek area in order to prevent future flooding and to protect habitat for steelhead and salmon.

Recently, the City collaborated with the Napa County Board of Supervisors and the Napa County Flood Control District to study the Napa River’s hydraulics between Deer Park Road and Pope Street. The resulting study identified the need for an extension of the 100-year floodplain beyond the areas previously identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Figure 9.3 identifies areas that fall within the City’s 100-year (one percent) and 500-year (0.2 percent) floodplain; as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2018. Figure 9.4 includes areas in and around St. Helena that would be inundated in the case of dam failure.

Low-lying portions of Napa Valley
are prone to flooding.

Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-9
9 public health, safety, and noise
Agenda Item #10.2.

9-10 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-11
9 public health, safety, and noise

COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD CONTROL AND RIVER RESTORATION
In 2011, the City completed a Comprehensive Flood Control and River Restoration Project north of the Pope Street bridge and on the west side of the Napa River.

The purpose of this project was to protect residential property in the floodplain from the 100-year storm events and restoring the Napa River and its surrounding habitat. The project is designed to reduce flood risk to protect approximately 470 homes, including the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park and the Hunt’s Grove Apartment Complex, that were located in a FEMA-designated flood zone prior to completion of the project. The project site was about 36 acres. The project planning began in 2000, with actual construction starting in May 2009. Phase I of the project consisted of construction of a levee, along with a storm drain bypass and other related infrastructure improvements. Phase II, the final phase of the project, included construction of a floodwall that is roughly eight feet high where it is anchored to the levee. The floodwall gradually reduces in height as it continues south along the Napa River to the confluence of the river and Sulphur Creek. It then turns to the west and continues along Sulphur Creek, terminating at Paseo Grand Avenue. The wall is about three and a half feet high at its terminus. The total project cost was about $32 million, with the cost of construction at about $9.1 million.

To balance the removal of land from the floodplain, the area known as “lower terrace B” was cut down significantly and widened to accommodate the large flood flows. In Phase II, this terrace was cut down to the level of the Napa River and is designed to carry significant amounts of flood water, should it become necessary.

The second half of this $9.1 million project is the continuation of the flood wall around Vineyard Valley and habitat restoration in the “upper terrace B.” The habitat restoration was a critical element of the overall plan and included the installation 40,000 plantings and anchoring fallen trees into the terrace. This project also included maintenance conducted according to a maintenance plan, irrigation, and development of a pedestrian interpretive trail.

St. Helena has developed an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the Comprehensive Flood Control and River Restoration Project, which describes the extent of the project and outlines operation and maintenance activities that the City and Napa County Flood Control District will work together to manage. The Agenda Item #10.2.

9-12 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
manual describes project features, routine monitoring and maintenance activities, pump station operation, emergency operations, surveillance, personnel training, utility coordination and design.

GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
Although St. Helena is located in a seismically active region, there are no known active faults located in the city (see Figure 9.5). Faults are commonly considered to be active or likely to have another earthquake sometime in the future, if they have moved one or more times in the past 10,000 years. The California Geological Survey, the primary source of geologic information used for decision-making by California’s government agencies, designates Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones around the surface traces of active faults in the state and provides maps for use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction so as to minimize associated risks. According to the most recent maps the nearest active faults to St. Helena are the West Napa Fault, located 14 miles to the south, and the Rodgers Creek Fault, located 13 miles to the west. Additionally, a number of unnamed, relatively small, older faults are located at the base of the Sonoma and Vaca mountains along the margins of the Napa Valley; however, based on available information, displacement of these faults occurred more than 10,000 years ago and as such these faults are not considered active.

Overall, the fault rupture hazard for the city is considered to be low, and the primary geologic hazards of concern are those that could result from excessive shaking effects stemming from earthquakes elsewhere in the region. For instance, a large earthquake event in the area could result in liquefaction in the city’s low-lying areas (see Figure 9.6), and landslides and debris flow in areas with sloped, hilly terrain (see Figure 9.7). Development in the city’s upland areas has often required the removal of trees and vegetation, leaving some hillsides susceptible to erosion and landslides during heavy rains. Actions available to the City to protect areas of the community at greatest risk and minimize the risks of injury and property damage include restricting development in the hillside areas and requiring prompt re-vegetation on slopes prone to instability. The use of best management practices during construction can also limit erosion and the risk of landslides. Employing earthquake engineering strategies in the design of buildings and structures, such as installation of earthquake drains or use of low mobility grouting and dynamic compaction during construction, can limit risks associated with liquefaction.

In August 2014, a 6.0
earthquake struck the Napa
Valley, with the epicenter of
the quake approximately 6
miles southwest of the City
of Napa. While damage from
the quake was substantial in
Napa, particularly in Napa’s
downtown area, St. Helena
experienced very little to no
measurable damage.

Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-13
9 public health, safety, and noise
Agenda Item #10.2.

9-14 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-15
9 public health, safety, and noise
Agenda Item #10.2.

9-16 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise

AIR POLLUTION AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigating the public health and safety risks caused by air pollution and hazardous materials will inevitably require changing human behavior. Air pollution resulting from auto exhaust, tobacco smoke, and fugitive dust creates unhealthy air conditions for residents and can pose a particular threat to sensitive populations, such as children and older adults. Implementing measures to reduce auto trips, tobacco smoke exposure, and construction-related fugitive dust can help St. Helena reduce residents’ contact with air pollution. Compact development patterns, facilities to encourage walking and biking, and incentives to reduce automobile trips are just a handful of ways that St. Helena can help improve local air quality.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the public agency responsible for regulating stationary sources of air pollution in Napa County and the San Francisco Bay Area. BAAQMD monitors air quality in the nine-county Bay Area and reports annually on pollutant concentrations for comparison to State and federal health-based ambient air quality standards. Data indicates that in the Bay Area, as throughout the state, the transportation sector and mobile sources of emissions are the most significant sources of air pollution. Senate Bill (SB) 375, approved by the Governor on September 30, 2008, seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—and, consequently, other pollutants—from mobile sources by Air pollution from auto
exhaust and dust, can pose
health hazards among
sensitive populations.

Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-17
9 public health, safety, and noise
integrating land use and transportation planning at the regional level. (For a more detailed discussion of SB 375 and related opportunities see the Climate Change Element.)
Hazardous materials used by local businesses are often transported on the City’s roadways and found present in smaller quantities in private homes in the form of solvents, cleaning fluids, and other substances. Implementing policies to improve the safe use, transport, and disposal of these materials can be instrumental in avoiding environmental contamination and human health impacts.

NOISE
Noise is a sound which is unhealthy or unwanted. It can be a human-caused public health hazard which includes excessive, intrusive, or objectionable noises that disrupt daily life. Noise has been tied to physiological effects ranging from hearing loss, high blood pressure, and sleep disturbance, to communication interference and general interruption and annoyance of normal daily activities.

Definitions of acoustical terms used in this discussion are listed in Table 9.1.

Land uses have different levels of compatibility relative to noise, and the State of California mandates that general plans include noise level compatibility standards for the development of land as a function of a range of noise exposure values (see Table 9.2). Table 9-3 identifies interior noise standards.

The ambient noise environment throughout much of St. Helena is extremely quiet in comparison to typical urbanized settings, especially in the evenings and at nighttime. With the exception of Main Street (State Route 29) and major collector roadways, the noise environment can be characterized as being that of a quiet rural setting. Residential areas are generally shielded from traffic noise on highways, arterials, and collectors and register very low background sound levels.

Agenda Item #10.2.

9-18 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
TABLE 9.1: Definition of Acoustical Terms
Term Definition
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound. Equal to 10 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of two like quantities.

Sound Pressure
Level (SPL)
10 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the square of the sound pressure to the square of the reference sound pressure of 20 μPascals. Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter and expressed in decibels (dB).

Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure is expressed in Hertz (Hz). Normal human hearing is approximately between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.

A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The SPL in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes low frequency components of sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective response to sound.

Noise Unwanted or unhealthful sound.

Equivalent Noise
Level, LAeq
The average A-weighted sound level during the measurement period. The A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level.

LAmax, LAmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted sound level during the measurement period with the sound meter using fast-time-weighting.

LA01, LA10, LA50, LA90 The A-weighted sound levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.

Day/Night Noise
Level, Ldn
The average A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to levels measured at night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.

Total Sound The composite of sound from all sources near and far.

Ambient Sound The sound level measured in the absence of an intrusive or extraneous noise.

Intrusive Noise
That noise from a source of specific origin which intrudes above or within the existing background sound level. The degree of intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, time of occurrence, and tonal or informational content as in contrast to the prevailing background sound level which exists in the absence of the intrusive noise.

Background Sound Level The LA90 of the ambient sound. It represents the ever present lower sound level due to distant sources which are individually indistinguishable, and in the absence of the Intrusive or Extraneous Noise.

Extraneous Noise
Specific or distinguishable intermittent sound from nearby sources such as mechanical devices, leaf blowers, pumps, vehicles, horns, sirens, barking, talking, shouting, birds, wind and other similar individual sources, which don’t normally exist on a continuous or regular basis.

Intermittent Noise A noncontinuous sound consisting of a number of clearly distinguishable sound events of varying frequency and/or intensity.

Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-19
9 public health, safety, and noise
TABLE 9.2: Noise Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
Land Use Category Completely
Compatible1
Tentatively
Compatible2
Normally
Incompatible3
Completely
Incompatible4
Residential < 55 dBA 55-60 dBA 60-75 dBA > 75 dBA
Commercial/ Office < 65 dBA 65-75 dBA 75-80 dBA > 80 dBA Industrial/ Agricultural < 70 dBA 70-80 dBA 80-85 dBA > 85 dBA School, libraries, churches, hospitals < 65 dBA 65-70 dBA 70-80 dBA > 80 dBA Playground, neighborhood park < 67 dBA 67-70 dBA 70-75 dBA > 75 dBA

1. Completely Compatible – Specified land use is satisfactory, based on the assumption that any buildings involved are or normal conventional construction.

2. Tentatively Compatible – New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems of air conditioning will normally suffice.

3. Normally Incompatible – New construction and development should generally be discourage. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must b made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

4. Clearly Incompatible – New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

TABLE 9.3: Maximum Interior Noise Level Criteria of Intermittent Noise for Public Use Facilities Land Use Maximum Intermittent
Noise Level LAmax Basis for Criterion
Concert Hall 25 Intrusion of noise may spoil artistic effect Theater 30 Intrusion of noise may spoil artistic effect School Auditorium 35 Minimize intrusion into artistic performance School Classroom 55 Speech communication-20 ft.-raised voice School Laboratory 60 Speech communication-6 ft.-normal voice Church/Sanctuaries 45 Speech communication-50 ft.-raised voice Library 55 Speech communication-3 ft.-normal voice
Source: Adapted from Table 2 in “Night Insulation Problems in Buildings,” Paul S. Veneklasen & Associates, 1973; Noise Element of the Napa County General Plan, 1982.

Agenda Item #10.2.

9-20 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
Sleep disturbance and the annoyance of sound not only depend on the absolute sound level of a noise source but are related to the magnitude of the noise above that of background sound levels. This means that in particularly quiet rural environments, the control of extraneous, intrusive, and annoying noise sources is important to maintaining the public health and a quality living sound environment expected by the community. Typically, a change in noise levels of less than 3 dBA is not discernable to the general population. Increases in average noise levels from 3 to 5 dBA are clearly discernable to most people. Increases in average noise levels over the background ambient of more than 5 dBA are considered to constitute an adverse environmental impact health and quality of life.

Vehicular traffic on Highway 29 and collector streets is the primary source of noise in the community. Other non-stationary sources which are intermittent and generally inconsequential to the noise environment include flyover commercial aircraft at high altitudes, and small general aviation and helicopter flyovers. The Wine Train travels to St. Helena each day and emits a loud horn at crossings, along with the low frequency rumble of the diesel engines. Typical stationary noise sources in St. Helena include agricultural and industrial activities. Agricultural activities result in noise from wind machines, tractors, and sulphur blowers which are employed in the spring in the early hours of the morning. The St. Helena Fire Department has sirens at two locations which sound on average twenty times annually, with approximately half of them occurring during nighttime hours. Noise contours as of 2018 are seen in Figure 9.8.

Noise concerns in St. Helena are principally linked to land use compatibility. Concerns relate to adverse noise effects from new commercial development on surrounding noise-sensitive uses such as residences and schools, and also to adverse noise effects from agricultural activities within the city limit. Right-to-farm provisions necessitate accommodating agricultural uses while also seeking to minimize conflicts. To address these concerns and to promote a compatible noise environment throughout the city, Table 9.4 establishes limits on intrusive noise and regulates the amount of noise a specific sound source can emit relative to the typically low residential background sound levels. This standard is specific to residential areas within St. Helena.

Additionally, by generally promoting good neighbor practices and facilitating open communication between agricultural, commercial, and residential uses the City can help to foster a healthy noise environment. Noise contours projected for 2040 for highway traffic are shown in Figure 9.9. The physical distances of noise contours from the roadway centerline to be used in determining land use compatibility are listed in Table 3.11-11 of the EIR.

Human-caused public health
hazards include excessive,
intrusive or objectionable
ambient noises that disrupt
daily life.

Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-21
9 public health, safety, and noise
Agenda Item #10.2.

9-22 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
TABLE 9.4: Standard and Adjustments for Determining Noise Impact of Intrusive Noise for Residential Receptors

STANDARD
The LAeq of an intrusive noise shall not exceed the following values:
• 7 am – 7 pm (daytime) 45 dBA
• 7 pm – 10 pm (evening) 40 dBA
• 10 pm – 7 am (nighttime) 35 dBA
Or shall not exceed LA90 + 5 dBA whichever is greater. The background sound level LA90 must be measured in the absence of the intrusive noise at the appropriate time of noise impact.

The intrusive noise shall be measures in absence of extraneous noise.

Acoustical terms defined in Table 9.1 shall be considered as part of this standard.

The maximum noise level LAmax of any intrusive noise shall not exceed the LAeq limits by more than 10 dBA.

The limits for intrusive noise are to be corrected as indicated below.

These noise limits apply to the nearest residential property line or at the nearest affected location on the receiver’s property.

CORRECTIONS FOR INTRUSIVE NOISE
Type of Correction Circumstances of Correction Correction1 Seasonal
Summer or year round operation 0 dBA
December through March only + 5 dBA
Tone or Impulse No tonal or impulse character 0 dBA
Characteristics
Tonal character2 present in noise - 5 dBA
Impulsive3, repetitious or modulating4 signal - 5 dBA5
Notes:
1 Correction to be applied to the Standard’s limits for intrusive noise. 2 Tonality exists when the 1/3 octave noise level of the tone is 5 dB greater than the average level of the two adjacent 1/3 octave frequency bands. 3 Transient sound having a peak level of short duration typically less than 100 msec. 4 Either in amplitude, frequency or duration including compressor “hammering” noise. 5 In addition to correction for tonality.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Caption.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-23
9 public health, safety, and noise
Agenda Item #10.2.

9-24 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
FIRE
Key human-caused public health and safety hazards affecting St. Helena include structural fires, vegetation fires, and other disasters that require advanced planning. Overall, in the urbanized portion of St. Helena within the city limit, the risk of vegetation fire is moderate to low; however, areas of the city in the hilly terrain along the western perimeter of the city and east of the Napa River are designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as moderate, high or very high fire hazard severity zones, according to CAL FIRE 2020 data (see Figure 9.10). St. Helena does not have any critical facilities, as seen in Figure 9.1, located within a fire hazard severity zone.

As described in the Public Safety Services section, fire services are provided to residents by Napa County Fire Department and the City of St. Helena Fire Department. Fires occurring in the heavily-wooded hillside areas can be difficult for firefighting efforts due to slope, topography, and availability of fuels. Fire burns more intensely up slopes and securing a fire on steep terrain is challenging for firefighting efforts. Traffic congestion on City streets, including State Route 29, a two-lane highway, can provide limited ingress and egress for emergency vehicles that must gain access to the fire. Furthermore, traffic congestion can pose major challenges to St. Helena’s collaboration with neighboring municipalities and agencies that seek to establish and implement regionally coordinated disaster planning for police, fire, and emergency medical services. The City can St. Helena’s fire and police
departments respond to structural
fires, wildfires and other disasters.

Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-25
9 public health, safety, and noise
work with local, regional, and state agencies to address key traffic-related concerns on State Route 29 and County roads to ensure that adequate levels of fire protection are maintained, particularly on hillsides and in fire-prone areas, and to support regional collaboration for disaster preparedness.

In 2021, the Napa Communities Firewise Foundation led the development of the Napa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan in collaboration with Napa County agencies, PG&E, CAL FIRE and local jurisdictions. The Plan seeks to reduce wildfire risk in Napa County, including areas surrounding St. Helena, through a variety of proposed wildfire mitigation projects.

Napa County has experienced many historical fires in the past several decades.

Historical fires in or adjacent to St. Helena since 1950 are summarized seen below in Table 3.

Peak water supply and water availability are crucial for fighting wildfires. Peak load water supply refers to the sum total of water required for fire flow, operational daily consumption, and emergency storages. With new developments, the City will need to increase its peak load water supply reserves. Policies PS4.G and PS4.H seek to address water supply demand concerns.

Agenda Item #10.2.

9-26 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
TABLE 9.5: Historic Fires in or adjacent to St. Helena (1950–2021) Name Year Acres Burned
Roadside #14 1964 231
Atlas Peak 1981 33606
Howell Mountain Fire 1983 2354
Silverado 2003 69
Deer 2008 233
Hillcrest 2016 17
Tubbs 2017 36702
Atlas 2017 51625
Nuns 2017 55798
Glass 2020 67484
LNU Lightning Hennessey 2020 305651
Spring 2021 1
Pope 2022 4
Source: CAL FIRE 2021
Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-27
9 public health, safety, and noise
Agenda Item #10.2.

9-28 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise

CLIMATE CHANGE HAZARDS
The St. Helena Climate Vulnerability Assessment, found in Appendix B, includes an evaluation of how climate change may impact vulnerable community members as well as critical services, facilities and infrastructure in the City. Key findings from the assessment are summarized below.

Climate change is a global phenomenon that can impact local health, natural resources, infrastructure, emergency response, and many other aspects of society through changes in climate conditions. In St. Helena, climate conditions and associated natural hazards are expected to change in the following ways:
• Increasing temperatures: Average maximum temperatures in St. Helena are expected to rise between 3.3°F and 4.4°F by 2050, and between 4.2°F and

7.2°F by 2100.
• Extreme heat: Extreme heat days occur when the maximum temperature is above 100.4°F. The annual number of extreme heat days is projected to increase by as much as 31 days per year by 2100.
• Increasing intensity of precipitation events and longer dry periods: It is projected that by the end of the century the largest precipitation events in the Bay Area region will increase in volume (inches of rain per day) between 6% and 37%.
• Wildfire: There will be increased wildfire probability due to variable and decreasing precipitation and increasing temperatures.

Climate change will disproportionately impact certain populations in St. Helena.

The following vulnerable populations have been identified in St. Helena:
• Young Children: St. Helena has one of the highest concentrations of children in Napa County (St. Helena General Plan 2019). Children are particularly at risk to climate hazards because they are dependent on others for care, are vulnerable to injury or sickness, and may not understand or are not capable of taking the measures needed to protect against or evacuate from climate hazards. • Older Adults: Silverado Orchards Retirement Community and Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park are two particularly vulnerable facilities in the City, as they are home to a substantial population of elderly individuals.

Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-29
9 public health, safety, and noise
• Outdoor Workers: Extreme heat and smoke events pose disproportionate health risks to the city’s outdoor workers who are employed in viticulture, agriculture, construction, and other outdoor occupations • Individuals that are Linguistically Isolated: Individuals that are linguistically isolated have no to limited English proficiency. Linguistically isolated households may not understand important safety, public health, or evacuation orders and communications when conducted exclusively in English during a hazard event, which may compromise the ability of residents to remain safe and healthy. They may not have access to resources available to help recover from climate related impacts if resources are only available in English. • Visitors: St. Helena is surrounded by an expanse of vineyards and agricultural lands. The City is a popular tourist destination in Napa County. Visitors are at risk during climate hazard events as they may not receive adequate warning and may not have knowledge regarding access to emergency services.

All residents of St. Helena rely on various infrastructure and services such as water systems, electricity, natural gas, and roads. These systems and assets are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, which puts the wellbeing of residents at risk. Those with pre-existing and chronic health conditions that rely on services and systems, are particularly vulnerable in situations where hazard events impact access to electricity, food, water supplies, healthcare, sanitary resources, transportation, and communication platforms. Impacts to St. Helena from climate change are wide ranging and expected to include the following:
• Extreme heat can cause heat-related illnesses such as heat stress, heat stroke, and dehydration and may exacerbation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. Those who do not have access to cooling, who have high outdoor exposure, and those who have health conditions or physiological conditions are particularly at risk. Extreme heat may trigger a power safety shutoff to decrease wildfire risk and/or manage high demand. • Drought can impact the reliability of affordable water services for city residents which may cause individuals to become dehydrated and/or experience costs burdens associated with increased water rates. Prolonged droughts may limit the water supply for fire suppression efforts. Drought can also negatively impact wildlife dependent on local water resources. It can lead to declining quality and yield of vineyards located in St. Helena.

Agenda Item #10.2.

9-30 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
• Wildfires can cause individuals to be injured from smoke inhalation or burns.

People may also have their belongings or homes destroyed or damaged during a wildfire event. Residential and commercial buildings, critical facilities, and critical infrastructure can be damaged from a wildfire. Wildfires may move through open spaces, threatening local wildlife. In order to mitigate further risk, a power safety shutoff may be initiated during a wildfire which would impact electricity services in the city.
• Floods can cause individuals to be injured from high velocity or high-volume floodwaters. People may have their belongings or homes destroyed or damaged from floodwater inundation. Flooding can cause structural damage to residential and commercial buildings, critical facilities, and critical infrastructure. High volumes of floodwater may cause stormwater systems to get overwhelmed and impaired.

Implementation of policies and programs included in this Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element that improve the community’s adaptive capacity, including addressing some of the underlying contributing factors, will reduce the negative impacts that climate change could have on vulnerable populations, critical services, facilities, and infrastructure.

Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-31
9 public health, safety, and noise
FEMA oversees hazard mitigation plans.

Hazard Mitigation Planning
accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000 (DMA 2000) and followed FEMA’s 2011
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan guidance. The
Napa County MJHMP identified and profiled
hazards, assessed facilities and populations at
risk, and sets forth goals, mitigation strategies and
mitigation action items for flooding, earthquakes,
wildfire, severe weather, drought, climate change,
slope failure, dam failure, agricultural disaster,
and pandemic disease. Working together, local
communities and jurisdictions in Napa County
can reduce the long-term risks associated with
natural and human-caused hazards. Consistent
with that effort, the Public Health, Safety and
Noise Element is St. Helena’s primary policy
tool for ensuring local action and St. Helena’s
involvement in implementing regional hazard
mitigation strategies. For more information about
the Napa County MJHMP, visit
https://mitigatehazards.com/napa-countymjhmp/documents/.

Hazard mitigation is defined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as
“sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate
long-term risk to people and their property from
hazards.” The goal of hazard mitigation is to
ensure long-term resilience against natural and
human-caused hazards.

Mitigation Plans form the foundation for a
community’s long-term strategy to reduce disaster
losses and break the cycle of disaster damage,
reconstruction and repeated damage.

As a condition for receiving certain types of nonemergency disaster assistance, State, Tribal, and local governments are required to develop a
hazard mitigation plan. The Napa County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was written in cooperation with the cities of St. Helena,
Calistoga, American Canyon, Yountville, and
local special districts, and was developed in

CONCEPTS, TRENDS AND IDEAS
Agenda Item #10.2.

9-32 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise

9.3 Key Findings
There are several challenges and opportunities facing St. Helena related to public health, safety, and noise. The following key findings are based upon comprehensive existing conditions analysis and community input.

Flooding
• Flooding in Napa County generally occurs within the low-lying Napa Valley floor. Between 1961 and 1997, flooding resulted in approximately $540 million in property damages. St. Helena experienced major flood events in 1986, 1995, and 2005 that caused an estimated combined total of $95.6 million in damages in the city. Most flooding occurred in the vicinity of Vineyard Valley from Fulton Lane to Pope Street.
• The flood history of York Creek suggests that the creek bed is not of adequate size to convey larger storm events. During the 2005 New Year’s Eve storm event, flooding from York Creek significantly impacted residential and industrial properties. The Beringer water treatment plant flooded and ponds overflowed into the creek. In addition, the creek flooded vineyards on both sides of its corridor, downstream of State Route 29 to the Napa River. • Until 2002, an aggregate mining operation, now discontinued, removed approximately 40,000 to 50,000 cubic yards of material from Sulphur Creek annually. Further study is needed to determine how aggregate buildup at Sulphur Creek may affect flooding issues in the area.
• Completed in June 2011, the City of St. Helena Comprehensive Flood Control and Environmental Restoration Project provides a minimum 100-year level of flood protection within the project and surrounding area of St. Helena. Design of the project was done on the basis of a Napa River Flood Model Study from Zinfandel Lane to Lodi Lane completed jointly by the City of St. Helena and the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District with Measure A funding. The individual elements of the project include floodplain terracing, shoreline restoration, a new levee, floodwall and bank stabilization, and stormwater management features including a detention basin and pumping facility.

The project protects hundreds of homes and is projected to save millions of dollars in flood insurance claims.
• Portions of St. Helena’s residential, commercial and winery industrial areas are located within or near the 100-year floodplain. Requiring infrastructure Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-33
9 public health, safety, and noise
and drainage plans to minimize risk in these areas, in compliance with State and federal requirements, at a minimum, can promote the safety of residents and businesses. Moreover, restricting new development within the FEMAdesignated floodplain and prohibiting development in the floodway can minimize additional flood hazards and the need for further mitigation measures.

Seismic and Geologic Activity
• St. Helena is located in a seismically-active region, with seismic activity primarily related to movements in the San Andreas Fault Zone (SAFZ). Although there are a number of active faults in the region, there are no known active faults in St. Helena.
• Local earthquake hazard mapping suggests that a magnitude 7.9 or greater earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, or a 6.5 magnitude event on the West Napa Fault, could result in strong shaking in the city. As a result, St. Helena’s susceptibility to liquefaction ranges from low in the upland areas west of downtown, to very high along the Napa River. United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps indicate that slope stability and landslide issues exist in St. Helena’s upland areas, and a major earthquake event could result in significant debris flow. As noted previously, the recent August 2014 earthquake had a magnitude of 6.0, which resulted in no measurable soil liquefaction within the City of St. Helena.
• By limiting the type and scale of new development in hillside areas, or areas subject to liquefaction, the City can limit the potential for property damage and loss of life as a result of major seismic activity. In addition, complying with the Universal Building Code (UBC) and adopting other standards for building safety along with emergency response disaster planning will help minimize the impacts of seismic and geologic disasters.

Air Pollution and Hazardous Materials
• The greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the City of St. Helena is the Transportation sector, which comprises 59 percent of total emissions according to a 2018 inventory compiled for the General Plan update. The transportation sector is also the largest generator of air pollution emissions in the County, with mobile sources – automobiles and trucks – providing the greatest level of emissions. A 2007 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) GHG inventory indicated that approximately 56 percent of GHG Agenda Item #10.2.

9-34 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
emissions in Napa County resulted from mobile source emissions. Mobile emissions are a significant source of other pollutants, as well, including carbon monoxide and particulate matter.
• The development of a Climate Change Element for the St. Helena General Plan is an important step forward in contributing to the effort to improve regional and local air quality. Napa County’s Communitywide Climate Action Plan and the Climate Change Element provide a strategic policy framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce air pollution derived from its multiple sources.
• CalEnviroScreen have shown that people living in agricultural areas of California have higher amounts of pesticides in their bodies than other people, which can result in adverse health outcomes. Based on data compiled by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), census tracts in St. Helena are in the top quartile in terms of pounds of pesticide per square mile in the state for the years 2012-2014. The Napa County Agricultural Commissioner is responsible for ensuring the safe use of pesticides in all settings in the county. The County runs a Pesticide Use Enforcement program to educate pesticide users of their legal responsibilities and conduct inspections and investigations to ensure the safety of workers, the public, and the environment. Compliance and enforcement activities are complemented with extensive training and outreach to help growers and employees ensure safe handling and use of pesticides.

Noise
• The primary source of noise in the community stems from motor vehicle traffic and commercial activity, particularly in areas near major roads, such as State Route 29. Mitigating traffic noise can be difficult, particularly the noise generated along State Route 29 throughout the day and night. However, the City can adopt noise standards to address more infrequent noise sources, such as those related to off-hours delivery, and commercial loading and unloading. • While there are few industrial noise sources in St. Helena, passing trains and aircraft generate intrusive noise periodically in the community. • Agricultural operations generate noise on a seasonal basis; however, local right-to-farm policies limit the City’s power to regulate noise impacts.

Encouraging the regular communication of planned agricultural activities to Agenda Item #10.2.

ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-35
9 public health, safety, and noise
ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 |
9 public health, safety, and noise
surrounding residents can help address potential conflicts relating to noise compatibility. In addition, adopting noise compatibility standards for sensitive land uses can help to minimize the impacts of intrusive noise sources.

Fire and Emergency Response
• St. Helena’s full time fire department, supported by six full time and 19 part time firefighter staff member (hired in Fall 2021), provides fire protection services for wildland and structural fires within the city limits and in unincorporated areas of Napa County. Although service levels within the city are generally adequate, the heavily-wooded and frequently dry hillside areas could create significant challenges for firefighters.
• By limiting the type and scale of new development in hillside areas, and requiring sufficient road widths and turning radii to accommodate emergency response vehicles, the City can limit the potential for property damage and loss of life due to fires.
• Traffic congestion can adversely impact emergency response time in St.

Helena, particularly when emergency vehicles must cross State Route 29. The City can work with emergency response providers to create solutions that address traffic-related emergency response challenges.
• The City of St. Helena Fire Department and Napa County Fire Department provide fire services to St. Helena.
• In Napa County, wildfires have grown in frequency and intensity over the past two decades. There have been several fires in or adjacent to St. Helena since 1950.
• Water availability and peak water supply are extremely important for fighting fires and preparing for disaster events. St. Helena can ensure adequate water availability by pursuing water supplies from additional sources.

Emergency response is an
important part of protecting
residents and businesses.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
9-36 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
1 AIR QUALITY
Climate Change Hazards
• Climate change is projected to increase the frequency and/or intensity of various natural hazards in the coming decades.
• St. Helena will experience increasing average maximum temperatures, increasing intensity of precipitation events, and longer dry periods. • St. Helena is vulnerable to growing impacts from extreme heat and wildfire. • As climate change occurs, communities and assets will be affected to varying degrees based on level of sensitivity to a particular hazard. • The City’s most vulnerable populations include young children, older adults, outdoor workers, individuals that are linguistically isolated, and visitors. • Vulnerable critical services and infrastructure include water systems, natural gas, and roads.
• Extreme heat, drought, wildfire, and flooding will have impacts to critical facilities, services, and infrastructure that are vulnerable and located in hazard zones.
• Wildlife may suffer from loss of habitat and decreased availability of food and water sources due to increased severity and frequency of extreme heat, drought, wildfire, and floods.

9.4 Goals
The goals of the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element are:

Maintain High Levels of Public Health and Safety.

St. Helena is committed to maintaining high standards of public health and safety through anticipation of and preparation for potential natural and humancaused hazards.

Effectively Coordinate Responses to Emergencies and Natural Disasters.

St. Helena is dedicated to protecting residents, businesses, and the environment through efficient local emergency response efforts, public education, and effective coordination with regional, State, and federal agencies.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-37
9 public health, safety, and noise
1 AIR QUALITY

9.5 Policies and Implementing Actions
A range of policies and implementing actions are outlined below and organized into the following topic areas:

1. Air Quality;

2. Noise;

3. Seismic and Geologic Hazards;

4. Fire and Hazardous Materials;

5. Flood Hazards;

6. Disaster Planning; and

7. Climate Change Hazards
The following policies and actions mandate, encourage, or allow certain initiatives to be pursued throughout the duration of the General Plan. Together, they serve as strategic directions for City staff and partners, highlighting where time and resources should be focused.

Policies and actions are set to
protect the community against
flood hazards.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
9-38 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
1 AIR QUALITY
Policies
PS1.1 Achieve and maintain clean, healthy air for the residents of St. Helena to preserve environmental quality and community health.

PS1.2 Support regional efforts to achieve and maintain state ambient concentration standards to protect public health, reduce adverse industrial plant effects, and enhance the visual environment. In particular, provide local support for implementation of policies and measures set forth in the Napa Valley Countywide Transportation Plan.

PS1.3 Encourage effective regulation of those sources of air pollution, both inside and outside of St. Helena, which affect air quality, by implementing as many of the recommendations of the Napa Valley Countywide Transportation Plan as are cost-effective, equitable and feasible.

PS1.4 Promote an optimized land use development pattern that minimizes cumulative air quality impacts from proposed developments consistent with statewide air quality standards and local affordable housing and economic development goals.

Implementing Actions
PS1.A Minimize local adverse air quality impacts related to construction by requiring dust abatement procedures for local projects as required by existing laws and regulations.

PS1.B Review project proposals for their potential to generate hazardous air pollutants.

PS1.C Develop guidelines for locating new sensitive uses, including residences, schools, and childcare facilities, away from air stationary pollutant sources consistent with existing air quality laws and regulations. The guidelines can include measures to mitigate air emissions from existing stationary sources, as well as to design buildings to prevent exposure.

PS1.D Encourage and support cost-effective regional efforts to use alternative modes of transportation.

Air quality can be improved
by implementing the
Napa County Congestion
Management Plan.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-39
9 public health, safety, and noise
1 AIR QUALITY
PS1.E If sufficient user interest is demonstrated, consider a citywide network to help commuters arrange carpools, including online coordination capabilities and designated areas for parking and pick-up.

PS1.F Subject to modifications that reflect local conditions, costs, and variations, consider adopting the thresholds of significance contained in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Guidelines for Assessing the Impacts of Projects and Plans for determining the significance of project impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act.

PS1.G Continue to implement an ordinance to restrict exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in new and existing multi-unit dwellings, public events, and outdoor areas, such as parks and playgrounds.

PS1.H Adopt a voluntary, cost-effective, employer-based transportation demand management (TDM) program for St. Helena businesses in compliance with the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP). Components of a TDM program should include measures to reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles for workrelated commuting, such as carpool/vanpool matching services and employersponsored transit passes., to the extent sufficient user interest is demonstrated.

PS1.I The potential for sources of odors that do not comply with national or state standards from restaurants, auto body shops, or waste treatment facilities shall be considered when evaluating proposed residential projects and projects with sensitive recipients.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
9-40 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
2 NOISE
Policies
PS2.1 Preserve the current low levels of noise in St. Helena to maintain the City’s rural atmosphere consistent with accepted national or international standards for noise protection.

PS2.2 Maintain a citywide environment that balances various City objectives while minimizing the impact of highway, railroad, and industrial noise. The City should manage both indoor and outdoor noise levels to protect health and safety. A combination of noise standards and existing noise levels should be used to determine impacts and mitigation measures.

PS2.3 Minimize potential noise impact conflicts between land uses by regulating land uses that are non-compliant with adopted noise ordinances.

Encourage noise-generating uses to reduce their impacts while promoting land use patterns that avoid conflicts. Employ the City’s noise standards, and noise contour maps to determine the compatibility of land uses.

PS2.4 Require a reduction and/or control of the use of machinery, mechanical systems and other noise-making equipment and sources in and near residential areas where the noise impacts are non-compliant with local noise ordinances.

PS2.5 An increase in average noise levels of 5 dBA or greater is considered to be significant and to constitute a noise impact by the noise source in question for the purpose of environmental analyses.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-41
9 public health, safety, and noise
Implementing Actions
PS2.A Consider the environmental impact of transportation-related noise and other noise sources in the review of any new projects and approval of subdivision plans and requests for changes in the zoning ordinance.

PS2.B Consider the Land Use Compatibility Standards presented in the State of California’s General Plan guidelines when siting new uses, subject to local variation based on local conditions and needs. These standards identify the acceptability of a project based on levels of noise exposure.

PS2.C Require an acoustical study, prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for:
• All proposed projects that are likely to be non-compliant with adopted City standards.

PS2.D Consider requiring a noise study when new developments are built in close proximity to noise sources, such as State Route 29 and the railroad tracks.

These developments should consider the exterior and interior noise environment.

PS2.E Require construction operations to use noise suppression devices and techniques and limit noisy construction activities per the City’s noise ordinance.

PS2.F Consider amending the City’s noise ordinance to regulate intrusive noise sources, such as the use of machinery and equipment, landscaping and property maintenance devices, animals, and idling buses or trucks in or near residential receptors or uses sensitive to noise.

Noise can be mitigated by
minimizing conflicts between
land uses by regulating incompatible land uses.
2 NOISE
Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
9-42 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
2 NOISE
Policies
PS3.1 Minimize risk of injury, loss of life and property damage from seismicallyinduced and other known geologic hazards.

PS3.2 Restrict the intensity of development and the level of landform alteration in the hillside areas where the potential for slope failure is significant based on existing seismic standards.

PS3.3 The required soils and geologic reports for new development shall include geotechnical analysis for construction in areas with potential geological hazards and/or for purposes of environmental analysis. The analysis shall investigate all potential geo-hazard issues for the site where there is substantial evidence of a potential risk.

PS3.4 Geologic reports for new development shall describe hazards and include mitigation measures to reduce risks to acceptable levels. Where appropriate, an engineer’s or geologist’s certification may be required stating that risks have been mitigated to an acceptable level.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-43
9 public health, safety, and noise
3 SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Implementing Actions
PS3.A Require a soils and geologic report to be submitted for new construction prior to the issuance of grading and building permits and the submission of final maps in seismically hazardous areas.

PS3.B Prohibit any development—including any land alteration, grading for roads, and structural development—in areas of seismically hazardous slope instability or other geo- logic concerns until mitigating measures are taken to limit potential damage to levels of acceptable risk.

PS3.C Require prompt re-vegetation of development areas on slopes prone to seismically hazardous instability. Use native and drought-tolerant plant species for landscaping on slopes where excess watering might induce seismically hazardous landslides and/or erosion.

PS3.D The City shall rely upon the most current and comprehensive geological hazard mapping available in the evaluation of potential seismic hazards associated with proposed new development.

PS3.E All development and construction proposals shall be reviewed by the City to ensure conformance to applicable building standards. Reasonable recommendations of the geotechnical analysis shall be implemented.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
9-44 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
Policies
PS4.1 Use the Zoning Code to define a reasonable transitional zone around industrial areas to protect the health and safety of residential neighborhoods.

PS4.2 Limit development in areas of High and Very High wildfire hazard as defined and mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE) in order to prevent the loss of lives, injuries, and property damage due to wildfires, unless development is permitted by local approval under the CAL FIRE regulations.

PS4.3 To the extent feasible and cost effective, protect residents, employees, and visitors from wildfires.

PS4.4 To the extent feasible and cost effective, protect St. Helena residents from health and safety impacts
related to the use, storage, manufacture, and transport of hazardous materials.

PS4.5 Encourage new uses that do not rely extensively
on the use of hazardous materials.

PS4.6 Facilitate communication and education about fire safety, non-point source pollution, household hazardous waste disposal, and recycling opportunities.

PS4.7 To the extent feasible and cost effective, ensure that all streets and roads comply with best practices and standards in terms of width, turning radius, and grade in order to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and to provide alternative emergency routes of ingress and egress.

The transitional zone around
industrial areas protects the
health and safety of residential
neighborhoods.
4 FIRE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-45
9 public health, safety, and noise
Implementing Actions
PS4.A Designate areas in St. Helena that are prone to fire hazards and make this information available to the community.

PS4.B Continue to require implementation of best practices in fire resistance for all new and remodeled structures in fire-prone areas, including fire fuel removal, creation of defensible space for firefighters, construction with fireresistant building materials, and installation of automatic sprinkler systems. Study the need to designate a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area within St. Helena to provide protection in additional areas.

PS4.C Require all structures in high wildfire hazard areas to maintain a clearance of flammable vegetation away from structures and to use fire-resistant ground covers. The minimum clearance distance should be 100 feet in the Wildland-Urban Interface areas.

PS4.D Require all new development to meet the minimum fire flow rates specified by the City’s Fire Code.

PS4.E Require all new development plans to be approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits, grading permits, or final map approval.

PS4.F Develop a program to inform and educate the community about potential risks, resources, and roles and responsibilities for addressing fire safety in St. Helena. Inform residents of homes adjacent to public lands of their responsibility to provide fire breaks and defensible space adjacent to their homes.

PS4.G Investigate additional water supply sources to ensure the provision of adequate water availability to meet future peak fire, emergency, and domestic demands.

PS4.H Permit new development only within areas that have adequate water pressure.
4 FIRE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
9-46 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety and noise
4 FIRE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PS4.I Coordinate with the Napa County Communities Firewise Foundation, the St. Helena Fire Safe Council, and neighboring jurisdictions to implement wildfire mitigation projects proposed in the Napa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan.

PS4.J Consider incorporating wildfire risk reduction measures, including load clearing and brush management into plans, operations and maintenance procedures for public access roads, parks, trails, open space, critical infrastructure, and critical roads.

PS4.K Provide educational materials to encourage businesses and residents to adopt drought tolerant and fire-resistant landscaping practices.

PS4.L Develop and disseminate education and outreach materials to landlords, businesses, and residents regarding retrofits and home-hardening measures that align with recommendations from CAL FIRE’s Wildfire Home Retrofit Guide.

Identify funding resources to support home retrofit and hardening projects.

PS4.M Partner with the St. Helena Fire Safe Council, the Napa Communities Firewise Foundation, and CAL FIRE to conduct educational workshops for landowners on defensible space, vegetation management, and home-hardening techniques based upon the most up-to-date science and State management guidelines to reduce wildfire hazards.

PS4.N Update standards in the zoning code to be consistent with the most recent SRA Fire Safe Regulations: title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 2, articles 1-5 (commencing with section 1270) (SRA Fire Safe Regulations) and title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 3, article 3 (commencing with section 1299.01) (Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures Regulations).

PS4.O Minimize risks to existing development in areas at highest risk to wildfire by identifying existing non-conforming development and revise to meet contemporary fire safe standards. Address road standards and vegetative hazard, and require all development to meet or exceed CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 2, articles 1-5 requirements (SRA Fire Safe Regulations).

PS4.P Coordinate with CAL FIRE and Napa County Fire Department to incorporate best practices around wildfire risk reduction and vegetation management into maintenance planning of parks and open spaces.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-47
9 public health, safety and noise
4 FIRE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PS4.Q Coordinate with CAL FIRE, Napa County Firewise Foundation, and Napa County Fire Department to identify funding sources and develop incentives to assist landowners in dead tree removal.

PS4.R Require fire protection plans for new development in areas of the City that are located adjacent to CAL FIRE hazard severity zones.

PS4. S Review all new development proposals for their potential to introduce the production, use, storage, and/or transport of hazardous materials, and require reasonable controls on such materials.

PS4.T Develop a Hazardous Materials Response Plan that includes guidelines, protocols, and strategies to respond to a local hazardous materials spill.

PS4.U Continue to require compliance with federal, State, and local regulations for the safe production, transport, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials that may cause air, water, or soil contamination. Require buffers for operations which handle substantial amounts of hazardous materials. When siting new facilities or expanding existing facilities, require buffer zones between hazardous materials facilities and residential uses, parkland, trails, and open space facilities.

PS4.V Develop and launch a citywide education campaign to encourage the use of green products in order to reduce non-point source pollution.

Target efforts towards the reduction of household chemical use and hazardous waste disposal.

PS4.W Require environmental assessments during the planning for development in areas previously used for agricultural, commercial, or industrial uses. Remediation of identified contamination that may result in health risks to construction workers and future owners and users shall be required prior to approval of construction, demolition, and grading permits for development.

PS5.X Work with the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner and other responsible agencies to identify and enforce mechanisms to control residual pesticides and pesticide runoff to prevent significant risk to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, and humans.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
9-48 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
4 FIRE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PS4.Y Develop a program to inform and educate the community about potential risks, resources, and roles and responsibilities for addressing fire safety in St. Helena. Inform residents of homes adjacent to public lands of their responsibility to provide fire breaks adjacent to their homes.

PS4.Z Review all new development proposals for their potential to introduce the production, use, storage and/or transport of hazardous materials, and require reasonable controls on such materials.

PS4.AA Develop a Hazardous Materials Response Plan that includes guidelines, protocols, and strategies to respond to a local hazardous materials spill.

PS4.AB Strengthen regulations for the safe production, transport, handling, use and disposal of hazardous materials that may cause air, water, or soil contamination. Require buffers for operations which handle substantial amounts of hazardous materials. When siting new facilities or expanding existing facilities, require buffer zones between hazardous materials facilities and residential uses, parkland, trails, and open space facilities.

PS4.AC Develop and launch a citywide education campaign to encourage the use of green products in order to reduce non-point source pollution. Target efforts towards the reduction of household chemical use and hazardous waste disposal.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-49
9 public health, safety, and noise
5 FLOOD HAZARDS
Policies
PS5.1 Minimize the risk to people, property and the environment caused by flooding hazards. Site new development to minimize potential damage from a 100-year flood. Consider changes in precipitation associated with climate change in the design of new development to avoid potential flood damages. Continue to require that any new development is constructed to FEMA standards. Prohibit the siting of uses within Flood Hazard Areas inconsistent with FEMA standards that could result in health and safety hazards, including those due to the release of chemicals or other substances as a result of inundation or erosion. Ensure that any new flood protection projects comply with federal and State standards.

PS5.2 Ensure that new development or existing lots of record within the 100- year floodplain are properly graded, sited, and constructed to mitigate flood effects and do not cause increases or expansion of the flood area that increase flood risk.

PS5.3 Within the 100-year floodplain, encourage open space uses, such as parks or natural areas.

PS5.4 Ensure that construction of flood barriers does not adversely affect natural floodplains, stream channels and natural barriers that help accommodate or channel flood waters.

PS5.5 Prohibit new development within areas designated as Floodway in the current FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). (Also see the Public Facilities and Services Element, Topic Area 3) PS5.6 Coordinate with the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and other responsible agencies to maintain protocols and funding for the regular inspection and maintenance of flood control facilities in the city, including levees, floodwalls, floodplain terracing, stormwater detention ponds, and pumping facilities.

PS5.7 Require that development within Special Flood Hazard Areas prepare and implement infrastructure and drainage plans compliant with State and federal requirements in order to minimize risk in these areas.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
9-50 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
PS5.8 Locate, when feasible and cost-effective, new essential public facilities outside of Special Flood Hazard Areas, including hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities. (Also see the Public Facilities and Services Element, Topic Area 3)
Implementing Actions
PS5.A Coordinate with the Napa County Flood Control District to ensure that stream channels are routinely cleared of vegetation and debris which could impede stormwater flows, while protecting riparian habitat.

PS5.B Require developers with land adjacent to the Napa River to construct or contribute a fair share toward the construction of necessary flood control improvements.

PS5.C Strengthen and enforce regulations that prohibit the dumping of litter, fill, and waste materials into creeks and waterways.

Educate the public about flooding and health hazards
associated with these activities.

PS5.D Require that best design practices are
implemented for sewer and water lines in areas subject
to flooding or are sited to avoid contamination and
flooding when pipelines break.

PS5.E Prohibit the introduction of urban
development in FEMA-designated Floodway zones.

PS5.F Review Municipal Code Chapter 15.52, Flood
Damage Prevention, to ensure that regulations reflect
best practices. Periodically update the City’s flood
hazard regulations in accordance with FEMA/NFIP regulations.

PS5.G Implement the requirements of FEMA relating to construction in Special Flood Hazards Areas as illustrated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

PS5.H Implement low impact development practices for new development and redevelopment projects to reduce stormwater peak flow rates and volumes from smaller, more frequently occurring storm events.

Coordination with the County
Flood Control District will
ensure that stream channels
are routinely cleared of
vegetation and debris.
5 FLOOD HAZARDS
Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
# TOPIC NAME
ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-51
9 public health, safety and noise
topic area
9 public health, safety, and noise
6 DISASTER PLANNING
Policies
PS6.1 Ensure that City emergency procedures are adequate in the event of potential natural or man-made disasters and that applicable operations and maintenance manuals are followed.

PS6.2 Ensure the swift and safe evacuation of residents, employees, and visitors in the event of a disaster event or other emergency.

PS6.3 Alleviate evacuation challenges associated with single access residential neighborhoods.

Implementing Actions
PS6.A Maintain and periodically update the City’s Emergency Response Plan.

PS6.B Conduct periodic emergency response exercises to test the effectiveness of City emergency response procedures.

PS6.C Continue to collaborate with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions to develop and implement a regional emergency coordination plan and agreement for police, fire, and emergency medical services.

PS6.D Maintain emergency roadways and improve them as necessary and appropriate to ensure ongoing serviceability.

PS6.E Maintain reliable communication pathways with the public to ensure a safe and streamlined evacuation.

PS6.F Engage with the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, Caltrans, California Highway Patrol, adjacent cities, and Napa County to identify regional evacuation solutions that address major evacuation routes.

PS6.G Conduct outreach with residents in single access road neighborhoods to enforce home hardening and defensive space standards and conduct emergency preparedness and response trainings.

PS6.H Coordinate with Napa County Sheriff Department, Caltrans, Napa County Emergency Response Team (CERT), St. Helena Fire Safe Council, homeowner associations, and neighborhoods to facilitate the use of Zonehaven for evacuation coordination.

PS6.I Develop and employ evacuation alternatives and/or alternative emergency access routes in neighborhoods that have single ingress/egress.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
9-52 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
6 DISASTER PLANNING
PS6.J Develop and maintain evacuation options for vulnerable populations such as young children, older adults, outdoor workers, individuals that are linguistically isolated, visitors, and individuals with access and functional needs.

PS6.K Designate and publicize evacuation routes and evacuation shelters through Zonehaven.

PS6.L Designate and publish in Zonehaven safety zones and/or shelterin-place locations as potential places of refuge when evacuation routes or evacuation shelter are inaccessible.

PS6.M Assist local and small businesses in planning for business continuity and emergency preparedness.

PS6.N Prioritize the City’s essential facilities when conducting post-disaster building evaluations.

Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040 | 9-53
9 public health, safety, and noise
Policies
PS7.1 Protect the City’s vulnerable population from the impacts of climate change.

PS7.2 Support greater resilience, redundancy, and reliability of local and regional infrastructure and services.

PS7.3 Protect and restore climate-vulnerable ecosystems, natural resources, and managed resources.

PS7.4 Increase local economic resilience and business continuity.

Implementing Actions
PS7.A Conduct an assessment on the effectiveness of current City cooling center operations to evaluate current amenities and resources available to ensure the needs of vulnerable populations are met during extreme climate events, such as high heat days and bad air quality days. Ensure the City’s cooling center has adequate backup power sources and battery storage to mitigate service disruptions.

PS7.B Update the St. Helena building code to require cost-effective and reasonable weatherization and consideration of extreme heat for new developments.

PS7.C Explore opportunities to provide funding assistance to households and populations that are in greatest need of weatherization to address extreme heat, extreme storm, and air quality concerns.

PS7.D Consider climate change impacts and vulnerabilities during the infrastructure planning process. Identify projects as part of capital improvement programs that consider climate adaptation priorities.

PS7.E Invest in cost-effective, feasible renewable back-up power sources and storage options to increase energy resilience at critical facilities during extreme heat events, wildfires, extreme precipitation events, or other scenarios that may trigger a power safety shutoff or outage.
7 CLIMATE CHANGE HAZARDS
Agenda Item #10.2.

topic area
9-54 | ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040
9 public health, safety, and noise
7 CLIMATE CHANGE HAZARDS
PS7.F Expand the use of drought-tolerant green infrastructure, including street trees, and landscaped areas where feasible and cost-effective, as part of cooling strategies in public and private spaces.

PS7.G Coordinate with PG&E and Napa County Office of Emergency Services to establish backup power and emergency grid shutdown protocols that protect the City’s vulnerable populations.

PS7.H Evaluate critical facilities to assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of retrofitting to increase long-term resilience to climate change hazards including extreme heat, extreme precipitation events, and wildfire.

PS7.I Partner with St. Helena Chamber of Commerce and Visit Napa Valley to pilot and implement a local business resilience initiative to build small business resilience capacity by increasing the awareness of and preparedness for business continuity risks in the face of climate change. Provide resources to help local business manage risk and enhance resilience, and conduct outreach campaigns to engage business, governmental, and community leaders to preparedness for economic resilience.

PS7.J Develop and disseminate guidelines and outreach materials on tree and plants species that are drought-tolerant and wildfire resistant to city residents and businesses.

PS7.K Partner with local researchers (such as, California State UniversitySonoma) to make accessible localized viticulture climate adaptation strategies that address impacts of extreme heat, drought, wildfire, and extreme precipitation events to vineyards in and around the city.

PS7.L In recognition of the increase in severity and frequency of floods and wildfires, essential public facilities should be sited in areas that are least prone to hazard impacts, when feasible and cost-effective.

PS7.M Partner with the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce and St. Helena Welcome Center to develop emergency public health and evacuation communication strategies for visitors and tourists.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Safety Element Update
Climate Change Hazards and Vulnerability Assessment
prepared by
City of St. Helena
Office of the City Clerk
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
Contact: Aaron Hecock, AICP, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
4825 J Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95819
March 2023
Agenda Item #10.2.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Table of Contents
Climate Change Hazards and Vulnerability Assessment i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 2 Approach.........................................................................................................................................2 3 Climate Hazards..............................................................................................................................3

3.1 Temperature .......................................................................................................................3

3.2 Precipitation........................................................................................................................5

3.3 Wildfire................................................................................................................................6 4 Vulnerable Populations...................................................................................................................7 5 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................9 6 References....................................................................................................................................10 Figures
Figure 1 Annual Average Maximum Temperature ...........................................................................4 Figure 2 Extreme Heat Days..............................................................................................................4 Figure 3 Figure Annual Precipitation ................................................................................................5 Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Safety Element Update
ii
This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Introduction
Climate Change Hazards and Vulnerability Assessment 1
1 Introduction
Climate change is driven by the human contribution of certain gases like carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. These gases, commonly known as greenhouse gases or GHGs, absorb and re-emit heat that has been discharged from the Earth’s surface. This works to trap heat near the earth’s surface, increasing the natural greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases from human activities have been collecting in the atmosphere since the 1800’s and are warming the climate more and more every year. This rise in average temperatures across the globe affects precipitation patterns, temperature, and ocean water levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that global climate change will impart adverse effects on the Earth’s natural systems, resources, and populations.

St. Helena is, and will continue to be, affected by the impacts of climate change in the form of increased extreme heat days, increased average temperature, stronger storms, more severe floods, deeper droughts, and more frequent and larger wildfires. Specific impacts on the community of St.

Helena will vary based on social, economic, and physical characteristics. This report assesses the projected impacts climate change will have on St. Helena.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Safety Element Update
2 2 Approach
Senate Bill 1035 (2018) requires St. Helena and all California cities and counties to update their safety element with new information on flood hazards, fire hazard, and climate adaptation and resilience in conjunction with the housing element or local hazard mitigation plan update cycle, which occur every 8 years and 5 years, respectively. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65302(g) (as updated by SB 379), St. Helena is required to complete a Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment in conjunction with the update to its safety element. The update to the safety element must consist of the following components:

1. A vulnerability assessment that identifies the risks climate change poses to the local jurisdiction and the geographic areas at risk from climate change.

2. Set of adaptation and resilience goals, policies, and objectives based on the information specified in the vulnerability assessment.

3. Set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out the goals, policies, and objectives identified in the adaptation objectives.

The IPCC, a United Nations subgroup responsible with global advancement and communication of climate change understandings, has established several scenarios used to describe possible future GHG emissions and associated warming. Two of these are commonly used to compare possible futures and have been selected for this assessment.
▪ The Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 represents a “medium emissions” scenario in which emissions peak around 2040 and then decline at the end of the century. This scenario assumes global agreement and implementation of GHG reduction strategies. ▪ The RCP 8.5 represents a “high emissions” scenario in which emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2021).

This assessment relies on Cal-Adapt, an interactive online tool that is aligned with the IPCCs emissions scenarios, to present localized climate change projections and impacts. The tool was developed and is maintained by the University of California Berkeley with oversight from the California Energy Commission (CEC). These climate projections provide an understanding of possible future conditions for temperature, precipitation, and wildfire in St. Helena. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment San Francisco Bay Area Regional Report, released by the State in 2018, and the 2020 Napa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan are also used to determine projected climate impacts in St. Helena and Napa County. These projections will allow St. Helena to prioritize policies and actions that increase resilience and the ability for the community to adapt and prepare for the effects of climate change.

Agenda Item #10.2.