4 *B10. Significance: Theme Development Area_S=t - H=e=le n=a --------- Period of Significance 1890-1920 Property Type Single-family Residence Applicable Criteria.....8....Q.
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity)
855 Pratt Avenue is significant under Criteria A and C. The building is significant for its connection to the residential development of St. Helena during the late nineteenth century. Constructed circa 1890, the house is an example of the vernacular farmhouses on large agricultural lots that developed north of the Napa Valley Railroad and northwest of St.
Helena's commercial and residential core. The houses in the area are large, typically two-story vernacular style buildings, and the properties include a group of agricultural outbuildings that make up the farm. The property's barn is an excellent example of the typical California vernacular style wood-frame barn building. 855 Pratt Avenue is significant for its architecture. The single-family residence is rendered in a vernacular style. The building exhibits elements of the common vernacular style including the building's massing, hipped roof, and simple materials including wood siding. This building also includes more decorative Italianate elements including wood brackets at the cornice, classical window surrounds and window hoods This building appears to be in good condition. 855 Pratt Avenue retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
On June 27, 1950, Peter Stark granted the property to Agostino Cravea. On February 26, 1952, Cravea granted the property to Robert Hartley. On June 2, 1959, Hartley granted the property to Robert W. and Patsy G. Wood. On July 14, 1960, the Woods granted the property to James M. and Ann A. French. On October 4, 1961, the Frenchs granted the property to Bernard L. and lvabelle B. Rhodes. On January 14, 1964, the Rhodes granted the property to Cecil E. and Florence Herrick. On January 31, 1975, the Herricks transferred the property to Florence Herrick. On August 15, 1980, Florence Herrick granted the property to Joseph R. and Marjorie A. Miller. On April 16, 1981, the Millers granted the property to the First American Title Company. On April 23, 1997, the First American Title Company granted the property to June, Frederick, Frederick Jr., and Carol Papina. On December 20, 2002, the Papinas granted the property to the Papina Family Vineyards, LLC. On June 23, 2003, the Papina Family Vineyards, LLC granted the property to Robin, Barry, Mark, and Frederick, Jr. Papina. On February 24, 2004, Carol, Robin, Barry, Mark and Frederick, Jr. Papina granted the property to the Papina Family Vineyards, LLC.
13. Applying the HP Overlay to the Property based upon a 2006 survey is far-reaching and seems counter to the city’s overall vision of maintaining a stable economy, establishing environmentally friendly structures, and ensuring a livable community. Furthermore, the Historic Demolition Permit Section 17.05.040 is cumbersome and creates interruption uncertainty related to its implementation.
Response: Please refer to response 1, which affirms that the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance is consistent with City policy in the 2019 General Plan. The Historic Demolition Permit regulations provide clear findings for an applicant who desires to pursue a demolition request.
14. We would like to help the city realize its vision by improving the Property but are concerned with the limiting factors of the proposed HP Overlay zoning district. Removal of the Property from the proposed HP Overlay zoning district would remedy the concern. I look forward to hearing that you have reconsidered and will not be zoning the Property within the HP Overlay.
Response: Comment noted. The property still retains architectural integrity therefore staff recommends it remain in the proposed Historic Preservation Overlay Zone. The City Council is the final decision making body regarding amendments to the zoning code.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 Response to Letter from Lone Cypress Consulting, LLC, Erik Lundquist
15. We are deeply concerned about the proposed designation, as the long-term plans for the property are still evolving, and such a designation could place major constraints on the ability to create a functional and attractive property that would ultimately benefit the city and its residents.
Response: Please refer to response 11.
16. The criterion for the designation appears to be loosely interpreted based upon an antiquated 2006 Historical Resource Inventory, which is not provided in its entirety on the City’s website. In our view, the proposed designation is neither justified, nor necessary to maintain the integrity of the existing property or neighborhood, a goal which we cherish.
Response: The 2006 St. Helena Inventory has been posted on the City webpage since fall of 2022, please see link below to access the report:
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/25 124/2006_inventory_combined.pdf
Please also refer to response 12 which includes specific architectural features that are still evident on the structure today. The City currently does not have guidance for repair, rehabilitation, new additions and new construction in the current Historic Preservation Overlay zone and implementation of the proposed ordinance will help ensure preservation of important architectural character defining features of properties included in the Historic Preservation Overlay.
17. The owners plan to invest time and resources into the property. The justification for the investment was based on the possibility to rebuild the property as others have been able to do.
By adding this designation to the property, that opportunity seems greatly diminished, if at all.
Response: Please see response 11.
18. After consulting with legal representatives, we have arrived at the conclusion that we are against this proposal and do not want this designation/restriction/limitation placed on the property and further feel it will greatly devalue the investment without reaching out to the owners first.
Response: In November 2022, the City mailed a notification letter and FAQ to those parcels to be included in the proposed expanded Historic Preservation Overlay zone and also an invitation to attend an informational meeting on November 30, 2022. The City is soliciting input prior to the code adoption hearings planned this summer and we thank you for your participation.
19. We respectfully request that the property located at 855 Pratt Avenue not be included in the HP Overlay zoning district.
Response: Please see response 14.
Agenda Item #8.1.
6 Response to Letter from Walker Warner, Clark Sather
20. Designating the property within the HP Overlay zoning district substantially limits the architectural design palette thereby limiting options for the city and the surrounding neighborhood to consider. To allow a more participatory architectural design option for this property, I respectfully request the city not zone the property within the HP Overlay zoning district.
Response: Comment noted. Please refer to response 11.
21. The criteria for the designation is vague since there does not appear to be a clear standard or criteria for determining what is historically significant locally and how to rezone the property out of the HP Overlay should it be determined not locally significant.
Response: Please refer to response 7.
22. Furthermore, the HP Overlay district provides no incentive for preservation, which will limit necessary improvements to properties that are unsafe.
Response: The Building Official has the authority to deem a building unsafe. In the circumstance if it is a property in the Historic Preservation Overlay determined to pose a serious and immediate threat to the public health, safety or general welfare, it is exempt from the Historic Demolition process (17. 05.040 B, 3,a). A Historic Preservation Ordinance is not required to provide incentives for preservation. The City Council may direct staff to research and explore this option post the code adoption.
23. Should the city elect not to remove the property from the proposed HP Overlay zoning district, I request that the city provide clear incentives to the owners.
Response: Comment noted.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Attachment 12
Proposed Revisions to A-20 in Table 17.19.030
Table 17.19.030: Development Standards – Community Agriculture and Natural Resource Zoning Districts
Standard A-20 lots < 2
acres
A-20 lots ≥ 2
acres
W WW Key
Density Max. 1 du/ac
Max. 1 unit/5
acres1
Max. 1 unit per
parcel1
Max. 1 unit per
parcel1
Lot Size
Lot Area Min. 1.0 acre2 Min. 20 acres Min. 20 acres 5 - 40 acres Lot Width Min. 70 ft No min. Min. 300 ft 20 - 200 ft ❺
Max. Lot Coverage
(includes accessory
structures)
235% 0.5 acre nonagricultural
3 50%
10% or 20,000 sq
ft, whichever is
less
Max. Ground Level
Floor Area (excludes
accessory structures)
4,500 sq ft 4,500 sq ft none none ❻
Table 17.19.030: Development Standards – Community Agriculture and Natural Resource Zoning Districts
Standard A-20 lots < 2
acres
A-20 lots ≥ 2
acres
W WW Key
Max. Second Story
Floor Area
none35% of the
ground floor area
35% of the
ground floor area
none none
Height
Principal Structure
Max. 30 ft/2
stories
Max. 30 ft Max. 45 ft Max. 35 ft above
natural grade
Accessory
Structure
Max. 16 ft none none none
Setbacks
Front Setback
Min. 20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft;
min. 30 ft for
structures >25 ft
Min. 50 ft,
measured from
the centerline of
abutting street
Min. 100 ft
20-50 ft or 10%
of lot depth,
whichever is
lesser
❶
Street Side Setback
Min. 20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft;
min. 30 ft for
structures >25 ft
Min. 50 ft,
measured from
the centerline of
abutting street
Min. 50 ft
20-50 ft or 10%
of lot width,
whichever is
lesser
❷
Interior Side
Setback
Min. 10 ft for
structures ≤25 ft;
min. 15 ft for
structures >25 ft
Min. 20 ft Min. 50 ft
20-50 ft or 10%
of lot width,
whichever is
lesser
❸
Rear Setback
Min. 20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft;
min. 30 ft for
structures >25 ft
Min. 20 ft Min. 75 ft
20-50 ft or 10%
of lot depth,
whichever is
lesser
❹
Min. Setback from
Abutting Waterway
Min. 50 ft from top of bank of Napa River; min. 20 ft from top of bank of all other waterways.
Landscape and Open Space
Agenda Item #8.1.
Max. Paved/
Hardscaped Area
25% of front
setback area0.25
acre 4
0.5 acre 3 none none
Min. Landscaped
Area 45
40% of lot area none none none
Required Buffer
Abutting
Agricultural Use
A landscaped
buffer min. 15 ft
width with street
trees at 30 ft on
center
none none none
Notes:
1 Density excludes agriculture employee housing.
2 Parcels created by lot line adjustments may be < 1 acre provided the number of parcels does not increase and that no lots are < 7,000 sf.
3 No more than one half0.5 acre of any one parcel may be removed from potential, historical, or actual active agricultural use or animal husbandry use. All structures, driveways (except for a 16-foot wide driveway no greater than 2/3 the length of the parcel), parking areas, patios, pools, lawn areas, or other nonagricultural uses are included in the half 0.5 acre maximum per parcel. 4 No more than 0.25 acre of any one parcel may be removed from potential historical, or active agricultural use. All structures, driveways (except for a 16-foot wide driveway no greater than 2/3 the length of the parcel), parking areas, patios, pools, lawn areas, or other nonagricultural uses are included in the 0.25 acre maximum per parcel.
5 Landscaped setbacks areas count toward this requirement.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Zoning Code Update
Joint PC/CC Study Session #4:
May 10, 2023
5:00 – 7:00 PM
Agenda Item #8.1.
2 Today’s Agenda
1. Introduction and Zoning Code Accomplishments
2. Process Overview
3. Introducing the Comment Tracker
4. PC/CC Discussion Items
5. Highlights of Updates Based on Previous Direction
6. Discussion and Next Steps
Agenda Item #8.1.
3 Process
We are
here.
Agenda Item #8.1.
4 What does the Zoning Code Accomplish?
1. Consistent with St. Helena General Plan
• Important implementation tool
2. Economic development tool
• Highest and best use on Main Street
• Design standards provide certainty
• Expanded list of uses
• Parking Exemption Overlay
3. Streamlines permit processes
• More staff level review (i.e. by-right and
MUP; Multi-family consistent with
objective standards is ministerial
review)
• Eliminates arbitrary major design
review findings - Objective
4. Facilitates multi-family development
• New objective design standards
• Ministerial review
• Reduced parking
5. Compliant with federal, state, and case law
• Telecommunications Act
• Recent Ca. legislative actions on housing
• Sign code – Reed v. Gilbert, 2015
6. Ease-of-use
• Land use tables
• Illustrations and graphics
• Rules of measurement
Source: St. Helena Historical Society
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 What does the Zoning Code Accomplish?
1. Consistent with St. Helena General Plan
• Important implementation tool
2. Economic development tool
• Highest and best use on Main Street
• Design standards provide certainty
• Expanded list of uses
• Parking Exemption Overlay
3. Streamlines permit processes
• More staff level review (MUP and byright)
• Eliminates arbitrary major design
review findings
4. Facilitates multi-family development
• New objective design standards
• Ministerial review
• Reduced parking
5. Compliant with federal, state, and case law
• Telecommunications Act
• Recent Ca. legislative actions on housing
• Sign code – Reed v. Gilbert, 2015
6. Ease-of-use
• Land use tables
• Illustrations and graphics
• Rules of measurement
Agenda Item #8.1.
6 Table of Contents
Part I: General Provisions
Part II: Administration and
Procedures
Part III: District Regulations
Part IV: Citywide Standards
Part V: Uses and Definitions
Agenda Item #8.1.
7 Overview of Comment Trackers
• Record PC, CC, and Public Comments
• October 26th
• November 16th
• December 7th
• Four Separate Trackers
• All public comments
• Mr. Dan Hale
• Mr. Joe McGrath
• Mr. Greg Desmond
• Comments were mostly inserted as
written
• Gold background identifies
recommended edits to the Code
Agenda Item #8.1.
8 Discussion Items – PC/CC Direction Requested
• Section 17.09.030.F, Certificate of Present
Extent of Legal Nonconformity for Uses
• Section 17.09.050, Nonconforming
Buildings and Structures
• Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
Agenda Item #8.1.
9 Section 17.09.030, Nonconforming Uses
Section 17.19.030.F Certificate of Present Extent of Legal Nonconformity for Uses • Allows an owner to apply for a certificate determining the present extent of a legal nonconforming use (also the Director under certain conditions) • PRD required review and approval by the Planning Commission at a public hearing • Amendment is in response to public comment to make the Director the approval authority; Director has discretion to elevate to Planning Commission as the final decision-making body.
Section 17.09.030.F.3, Public Hearing
• Amended to delete Public Hearing requirement
• Rewrite to show the Director of Community Development as the approval authority Section 17.03.030, Summary of Approval Authorities for Decisions and Appeals • Update Table 17.03.030: Approval Authorities
Agenda Item #8.1.
10 Section 17.09.050, Nonconforming Buildings or Structures Section 17.09.050.A, Expansion and Enlargement
A. A nonconforming building, structure or other physical feature shall not be reconstructed, except as provided for in subsection C of this Section, expanded, or enlarged unless the new work will be in conformance with the regulations and standards of the zoning district in which it is located and the provisions of the Zoning Code. Nor shall any nonconforming building, structure or other physical feature be absorbed, remodeled into or made part of, all or in part, any other building, structure or other physical feature unless all nonconforming portions, items or aspects are brought into conformance.
Section 17.09.050.B, Remodel, Rehabilitation, and Alteration B. A nonconforming building, structure or physical feature may be remodeled, rehabilitated, or structurally altered if the new work does not increase the degree of nonconformity.
Section 17.09.050.C, Repair, Maintenance and Reconstruction Agenda Item #8.1.
11 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
What has Changed or Been Deleted?
A.Design Standards for All Residential
Development Types
2. Required 2nd-story stepbacks, LR and
MR
3. Building Orientation
4. Wall Planes (formerly Bldg.
Transparency)
Roofline and Roof Design
5. Exterior Building Materials
6. Landscaping
Sustainability and Energy Efficiency
B. Design Standards Specific to Small
Lot Development
4. Small Lot Entrances
7. Small Lot Landscaping
8. Small Lot Private Open Space
C. Design Standards Specific to MultiFamily Development
1. Design
3. Entry Design
4. Common Outdoor Recreation Space
Universal Design
Agenda Item #8.1.
12 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
A. Design Standards for All Residential Types
2. Required Second Story Step Backs in the
LR and MR Districts.
• Policy direction from the Community Design
Element of the General Plan
Agenda Item #8.1.
13 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
A. Design Standards for All Residential Types
3. Building Orientation.
• Clarified building entrance orientation to
ROW/walkways
• Clarified measurement of windows and decks from
existing residences for privacy
Agenda Item #8.1.
14 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
A. Design Standards for All Residential Types
4. Wall Planes.
• Replaces “Building Transparency” standards
• Simpler and clearer standards for articulation of a
building wall
• PC/CC – confirm change in material or color
Source: Lancia Homes
Source: Rocket Mortgage
Agenda Item #8.1.
15 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
A. Design Standards for All Residential Types
• Roofline and Roof Design:
Section removed
Agenda Item #8.1.
16 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
A. Design Standards for All Residential Types
5. Exterior Building Materials.
• Materials clarified and simplified
• PC/CC – confirm corrugated metal for siding in MR (older homes) • Requirements for colors removed
Source: Bridger Steel
Source: Western States Metal
Agenda Item #8.1.
17 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
A. Design Standards for All Residential Types
6. Landscaping:
• Clarified placement of landscape materials and
reinforced the need for drought tolerant landscape
materials in compliance with Chapter 17.25, Landscaping Source: One Kindesign
Source: Gardenista
Agenda Item #8.1.
18 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
A. Design Standards for All Residential Types
• Sustainability and Energy Efficiency:
• Section removed – included in the City’s Building Code Agenda Item #8.1.
19 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
B. Design Standards Specific to Small Lot Development
7. Small Lot Landscaping:
• Removed 25% of total site area landscape requirement; cross-reference to Chapter 17.25, Landscaping instead
• Reinforced the need for drought tolerant landscape
materials in compliance with Chapter 17.25, Landscaping Agenda Item #8.1.
20 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
B. Design Standards Specific to Small Lot Development
8. Small Lot Private Open Space:
• Changed minimum required area from 120 sf to 100 sf
Agenda Item #8.1.
21 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
C. Design Standards Specific to Multi-Family Development
1. Design:
• a. Clarified the roof line standard
• b. Deleted this subsection
Agenda Item #8.1.
22 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
C. Design Standards Specific to Multi-Family Development
1. Design:
• c. Replaced “complementary” with
“consistent”
• d. Added awnings
• f. For buildings over 2 stories, added a
requirement for a material or color
change to distinguish the ground floor
• i. Former paragraph i deleted (included
in Building Materials section)
Agenda Item #8.1.
23 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
C. Design Standards Specific to Multi-Family Development
1. Design:
• i. Added distance requirement for buildings 12
feet or less apart to offset windows, balconies,
and other open spaces to provide increased
privacy
• j. Clarified the private storage space standard to
enable placement within or outside of a building
Agenda Item #8.1.
24 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
C. Design Standards Specific to Multi-Family Development
3. Entry Design:
• a. Modified shared entrance visibility requirement
to include shared walkways
• c. Modified exterior entrance requirements to
allow access to 4 units (previously 3 units)
• d. Replaced “single-family neighborhoods” with LR
or MR district
Agenda Item #8.1.
25 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
C. Design Standards Specific to Multi-Family Development
4. Common Outdoor Recreation Space:
• c. Changed “accessibility” to “visibility” and clarified applies to 50% of units
Agenda Item #8.1.
26 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
C. Design Standards Specific to Multi-Family Development • Universal Design
• Subsection deleted – included in the City’s Building Code Agenda Item #8.1.
27 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
“What if a person does not want to follow objective design standards?” • Options for compliance
• State law now only allows the City to adopt objective standards for housing development.
• Worked to balance between inexpensive materials and
materials that are appropriate in St. Helena.
• State law doesn’t allow the City to provide any
discretionary relief from those objective standards.
• But state law (Density Bonus Lawn) also guarantees
developers a certain number of incentives or concessions that may be used to waive objective standards that may
make a project too expensive if affordable housing units (5 or more) are included in the project.
Agenda Item #8.1.
28 Highlights of Updates per PC/CC Direction
Chapter 17.16, Residential Zoning Districts
• Section 17.16.020 Use Regulations:
Added the uses for the LR-1A zone back into the Code
• Section 17.16.020 Development Standards:
Added the standards for the LR-1A zone back into the Code • Also update the list of zones in Table 17.15.020.A: Base Zoning Districts to add the LR-1A zone
• Table 17.16.030 Development Standards
o Delete max. building frontage standard: not needed as setbacks provide appropriate controls
o Reduce private open space standard from 120 sq ft/unit:
MR – 80 sq ft/unit
HR – 60 sq ft/unit
o Further clarified as ground floor area only – no balconies Agenda Item #8.1.
29 Highlights of Updates per PC/CC Direction
Chapter 17.16, Residential Zoning Districts
• Section 17.16.020 Use Regulations:
Added the uses for the LR-1A zone back into the Code
• Section 17.16.020 Development Standards:
Added the standards for the LR-1A zone back into the Code • Also update the list of zones in Table 17.15.020.A: Base Zoning Districts to add the LR-1A zone
• Table 17.16.030 Development Standards
o Reduce private open space standard from 120 sq ft/unit:
MR – 80 sq ft/unit
HR – 60 sq ft/unit
• Insert new Table 17.16.030.B: Primary Building Footprint Standards in the LR Zoning District
o Establishes max. building footprint for primary buildings (excludes accessory structures)
o Sliding scale
Agenda Item #8.1.
30 Highlights of Updates per PC/CC Direction
• Table 17.16.030.A: Development Standards
o Min. garage or carport setback from a building façade updated from 10 feet to 5 feet
o Ensures garages are subordinate to the front façade of a residence
Chapter 17.16, Residential Zoning Districts
Source: A.CRE NOT THIS!!
THIS!!
Source: iStock
Agenda Item #8.1.
31 Highlights of Updates per PC/CC Direction
• Table 17.17.020.A: Use Regulations
o Update CB Zone – allow residential uses with a CUP consistent with the General Plan and General Plan EIR
o Multi-family dwellings and SRO
o Add a new statement to the introduction clarifying that where state law requires ministerial approval, the state law will prevail Chapter 17.17, Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts • Table 17.18.020.A: Use Regulations
o Update BPO Zone – allow residential uses with a CUP consistent with the General Plan and General Plan EIR
o Multi-family dwellings and SRO
o Add a new statement to the introduction clarifying that where state law requires ministerial approval, the state law will prevail Chapter 17.18, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts Added to all Chapters where
residential uses are allowed
Agenda Item #8.1.
32 Highlights of Updates per PC/CC Direction
• Table 17.18.020.A: Use Regulations
o Allow micro-distilleries in the I District with a CUP o Note: New definition of “Micro-distillery” will be added to Chapter 17.33, Definitions of Uses
o Allow food trucks in the I and BPO districts by-right, i.e. “P” o Note: New definition of “Food truck” will be added to Chapter
17.33, Definitions of Uses
Chapter 17.18, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts Source: Redwall Distillery
Source: New York Times
Agenda Item #8.1.
33 Highlights of Updates per PC/CC Direction
• Table 17.19.020.A: Use Regulations
o Tanks associated with winery uses – retain the CUP requirement for outdoor tanks. Add an End Note as follows:
o * If the new tanks increase wine production volume beyond what is established in the existing CUP or Certificate of Legal NonConforming, a new CUP is required. If there is no increase in wine production as a result of the proposed new tanks, no CUP is required.
o Design Review is only required if the tanks are located outdoors Chapter 17.19, Community Agricultural and Natural Resource Zoning Districts Source: Quady Winery
Source: Jeff Runquist Wines
Agenda Item #8.1.
34 Highlights of Updates per PC/CC Direction
• Table 17.19.030.A: Development Standards (A-20 Zone)
o Max. lot coverage: Lots <2 acres – 25% 4
o Max. Second Story Floor Area: Lots <2 acres – 35% of ground floor area
o Max. lot coverage: Lots ≥2 acres – 0.5 acres 3non-agricultural o Max Paved/Hardscape Area: Lots <2 acres – 0.25 acre 4 o Update End Notes 3 and 4:
3 No more than 0.5 acre of any one parcel may be removed from potential historical or active agricultural use. All structures, driveways (except for a 16-foot wide driveway no greater than 2/3 the length of the parcel), parking areas, patios, pools, lawn areas, or other nonagricultural uses are included in the 0.5 acre maximum per parcel.
4 No more than 0.25 acre of any one parcel may be removed from potential historical, or active agricultural use. All structures, driveways (except for a 16-foot wide driveway no greater than 2/3 the length of the parcel), parking areas, patios, pools, lawn areas, or other nonagricultural uses are included in the 0.5 acre maximum per parcel.
Chapter 17.19, Community Agricultural and Natural Resource Zoning Districts Lots ≥2 acres
Lots <2 acres
4 Agenda Item #8.1.
35 Highlights of Updates per PC/CC Direction
• Section 17.22.230, Small Wineries
o E. Development and Use Standards
2. Eliminate the residency requirement for the winery owner
3. Grape source – change to “the city limits of the City of St.
Helena”
o PC/CC – discussion topic (See email from Mark Smithers, Trinchero Estates)
Chapter 17.22, Specific to Uses
Source: Cellar Angels
Agenda Item #8.1.
36 Highlights of Updates per PC/CC Direction
• Active agricultural use:
o Includes animal husbandry, crop and tree farming, and viticulture.
• Wine production:
o A winery's total annual production equals either (1) the sum of all wine created through fermentation in a given year, plus the net total of all fermented bulk wine received and
shipped in the same year, or (2) the amount of wine bottled on the premises in the same given year, whichever is
greater., including all bottled wine received on the premises during the same year.
• Wine shop:
o An establishment that purchases and sells wines from
multiple wineries and distributors. Wines may be made in other counties in California, other states, or other countries.
Beer sales may occur in wine shops. Incidental wine tastings may occur in wine shops. Wine shops must possess a Type 20, 21, or 42 license from Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Chapter 17.33, Definitions of Uses
Agenda Item #8.1.
37 Highlights of Updates per PC/CC Direction
• Multi-family dwelling:
o Two Three or more attached dwelling units on a single lot.
Types of multi-family dwellings include duplexes, single-room occupancy units, townhouses, and apartment buildings.
• Formula business: (Note City Attorney recommends no
change)
o A business which is required by contractual or other
arrangement to maintain any of the following: standardized services, decor, uniforms, architecture, signs, trademark, name, or other similar standardized features which cause them to be substantially identical to 10 or more other
businesses in the United States regardless of ownership or location. This shall include, but not be limited to, retail sales and service, visitor accommodations, wholesale and
industrial operations. Does not include formula restaurants, which are prohibited.
Chapter 17.33, Definitions of Uses
Note this definition does not
prohibit a Thomas Keller restaurant
Agenda Item #8.1.
38 Items to Address Post Code Adoption
Recommendation:
Address with the
Downtown Master Plan
• Parking ratios outside Parking Exemption Overlay
• Formula businesses (restaurants)
• Building height in Downtown – CB zone
• Other based on discussion on May 10, 2023
Agenda Item #8.1.
39 Discussion Items – PC/CC Direction Requested
• Section 17.09.030.F, Certificate of Present
Extent of Legal Nonconformity for Uses
• Section 17.09.050, Nonconforming
Buildings and Structures
• Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
• Small Wineries
Slide 9
Slide 10
Slide 11
Slide 35
Agenda Item #8.1.
40 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
What has Changed or Been Deleted?
A.Design Standards for All Residential
Development Types
2. Required 2nd-story stepbacks, LR and
MR
3. Building Orientation
4. Wall Planes (formerly Bldg.
Transparency)
Roofline and Roof Design
5. Exterior Building Materials
6. Landscaping
Sustainability and Energy Efficiency
B. Design Standards Specific to Small
Lot Development
4. Small Lot Entrances
7. Small Lot Landscaping
8. Small Lot Private Open Space
C. Design Standards Specific to MultiFamily Development
1. Design
3. Entry Design
4. Common Outdoor Recreation Space
Universal Design
Agenda Item #8.1.
41 855 Pratt Avenue, St. Helena
• House is listed in GP Historic Resources List and in
proposed Historic Preservation Overlay
• Property owner objects to the listing claiming the City doesn’t have a process for demolition and delisting a
historic structure
• Staff prepared master response (Attachment 11):
o Structure surveyed in 2011 and retains architectural integrity o Should remain in HP Overlay
• Updated Zoning Code:
o Clear process for historic demolition permit (17.05.040) o Clear process for removing a historic resource designation (17.10.030)
Section 17.05.040, Historic Demolition Permit
Source: Google Earth
Agenda Item #8.1.
42 Next Steps Following this Public Meeting
1. Staff and LWC will incorporate comments from this session and the comment trackers into a Public Hearing Draft (PHD)
2. LWC will prepare the CEQA memo
3. Schedule Planning Commission hearing for PHD (earliest date July 6th)
4. Schedule City Council hearing/Adoption – August (following Planning Commission recommendation for adoption)
Agenda Item #8.1.
43 Feedback
1. Council and Commission Feedback
2. Public Feedback
3. Additional feedback (No later than noon May 12th) to:
Maya DeRosa, AICP
Community Development Director
[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.1.
44 Thank you!
Agenda Item #8.1.
45 Private Open Space Standards
10. Private Outdoor Open Space. For multi-story dwelling units, private outdoor open space must be provided by a
combination of balconies, porches, decks, or private ground floor open space (for ground floor units).
Edit as:
10. Private Ground Floor Outdoor Open Space. For multi-story dwelling units, private ground floor outdoor open space must be provided by a combination of balconies, porches, decks, patios, or private ground floor open space such as garden areas (for ground floor units).
Table 17.16.030 Development Standards, Residential Zoning Districts Landscaping and Open Space
Private Ground
Floor Open Space
for Multi-Family
Development
n/a n/a Min. 80 sq ft/unit Min. 60 sq ft/unit
LR-1A LR MR HR
Section 17.16.040.A.10
Recommendation:
Do not regulate balconies –
only require private open
space on the ground floor
Agenda Item #8.1.
From: Roy Piper
To: Maya DeRosa
Subject: Re: [External] 1509 Tainter and proposed HP Overlay Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 10:25:10 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Maya, sorry for the delay in this response.
By any chance are you related to the founders of the DeRosa Reserve? My former friend Ron Wornick, who was a major art collector and recently passed, was a big fan of the Reserve, so just wanted to check.
As to the topic, I am against what I understand is the intent and eventual regulations that would come with these proposals for a few reasons.
1. It is well known that such renovation requirements and permitting processes, already too long in St Helena, will become even more lengthy, as having to navigate a historical regulatory body would add yet another time consuming layer to an already overly complicated process.
2. Already the city permit fees are very high compared to most cities and this would clearly add more costs to the process. We do not need it to be more expensive to live here.
3. Building costs already are $500-1000 per square foot and if we are forced to renovate to original designs this will add much more cost. For example, having to replicate the style of old windows would mean custom windows which take more time and much more money. This would happen across the board.
4. It would REDUCE, not increase, money to the city over time, as less buyers would be willing to purchase homes here due to the frictional costs, keeping home values lower than they would be otherwise. This would reduce the value compared to other, less regulated cities in the valley. Already Calistoga has higher property price growth than St Helena.
5. It makes the city less desirable to live in because no one wants to deal with the heavy hand of all these regulations.
6. There is a mistaken logic that "older is better" and that residents even want what is being proposed. I contend they do not think that way.
My wife and I purchased our home at 1509 Tainter last year. This home is over 100 years old and in dire need of much work and improvement. The last thing we need is to keep our 1016 sqft house as it was originally designed, detail by detail. It is our house, not yours or the city's.
Already the costs and time and step by step regulations are too burdensome. And more "historical" regulations that cause more delays, more money and more construction costs that limit rational improvements are a negative and dis-incentive for existing owners and future buyers.
I would like you to vote against the discussed historical regulations for these reasons.
Please let me know when the planning commission is meeting with the board or by themselves Agenda Item #8.1.
in public on this issue as I and others would like to attend. Thank you.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 8:09 PM Maya DeRosa <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Roy, I would like to introduce myself, I am the Community Development Director and also the project manager for the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. I understand that you have some concerns regarding your property at 1509 Tainter being proposed for inclusion in the proposed HP Overlay. I would like to offer to meet with you to discuss your concerns, give you the background on the creation of the HP Overlay and answer also any questions you have about the zoning update process. Please let me know if there is a good day and time to meet and I will check my schedule.
At this time we do not have a proposed date for adoption hearings of the code but there will an additional joint City Council and Planning Commission public meeting as the next step and we send out press releases on e-news alerting when those meetings take place.
Best regards,
Maya
MAYA DEROSA, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1572 Railroad Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning Agenda Item #8.1.
Response to Roy Piper Email January 31, 2023
As to the topic, I am against what I understand is the intent and eventual regulations that would come with these proposals for a few reasons.
1. It is well known that such renovation requirements and permitting processes, already too long in St Helena, will become even more lengthy, as having to navigate a historical regulatory body would add yet another time consuming layer to an already overly complicated process.
City Response: The City disagrees. To the contrary, the process will be more streamlined as currently there are no preservation ordinance standards for repairs, rehabilitation and additions to properties in the HP Overlay zone. By creating these standards, if a project is submitted for review that is not visible from the right of way or less than a 25% increase of the existing floor area, and is consistent with the standards, it will have a staff level approval (not Planning Commission Design Review).
2. Already the city permit fees are very high compared to most cities and this would clearly add more costs to the process. We do not need it to be more expensive to live here.
City Response: The costs for the permit fees for a property in the HP Overlay are no different for a property not designated in the HP Overlay.
3. Building costs already are $500-1000 per square foot and if we are forced to renovate to original designs this will add much more cost. For example, having to replicate the style of old windows would mean custom windows which take more time and much more money. This would happen across the board.
City Response: The City currently relies on historic reports prepared by architectural historians to determine what architectural features need to be retained. The new proposed regulations do not force “original designs”. Original windows in many cases are character defining features of historic structures. Best practice is to repair, not replace which is more economical and sustainable. However, the ordinance builds in flexibility for use of alternate materials as noted in General Rehabilitation Principles 17.21.040 (a) (iii):
iii. When replacement is necessary and original material cannot be obtained, substitution material should incorporate the color, design, and texture that conveys the visual appearance of the original material.
4. It would REDUCE, not increase, money to the city over time, as less buyers would be willing to purchase homes here due to the frictional costs, keeping home values lower than they would be otherwise. This would reduce the value compared to other, less regulated cities in the valley.
Already Calistoga has higher property price growth than St Helena.
Agenda Item #8.1.
City Response: The topic of property values of properties with a historic designation vs nondesignated properties has been widely studied. Please refer to the link to the informational study below from Cleveland State University “The Impact of Local Historical Designation on Residential Property Value; An Analysis of Three Slow-Growth and Three FastGrowth Central Cities in the United States” which notes on page 106 “ results indicate that local historic designation had a positive effect on property values and statistically significant at the 5.0 percent level.” https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=etdarchive
5. It makes the city less desirable to live in because no one wants to deal with the heavy hand of all these regulations.
City Response: The recently adopted 2019 General Plan, Historic Resources Element, emphasizes the special unique character of the City which is founded by both its agrarian and architectural heritage. Policies that support the creation of a preservation ordinance in the draft zoning code include:
Policy HR1.1 : “Preserve the City’s historic and cultural resources so that they may contribute to the special character and quality of the City and support its economic base.” Policy HR1.K : “Require that rehabilitation or restoration of historical resources be done according to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration and Reconstruction of Historic Buildings.”
In fact, many would be homebuyers seek out St. Helena neighborhoods for their walkable, small town historic charm which is not as prevalent in surrounding cities and towns.
6. There is a mistaken logic that "older is better" and that residents even want what is being proposed. I contend they do not think that way.
City Response: Please see response to number 5 above. The zoning ordinance should implement the General Plan which specifically calls for in Implementation Action HR1-A to adopt a historic preservation ordinance to implement the policies recommended in the Historic Resources Element.
My wife and I purchased our home at 1509 Tainter last year. This home is over 100 years old and in dire need of much work and improvement. The last thing we need is to keep our 1016 sqft house as it was originally designed, detail by detail. It is our house, not yours or the city's.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Already the costs and time and step by step regulations are too burdensome. And more "historical" regulations that cause more delays, more money and more construction costs that limit rational improvements are a negative and dis-incentive for existing owners and future buyers.
City Response: The City encourages you to meet with the Community Development Director to discuss the plans for your home improvement and what historic exterior features exist. The preservation ordinance has no authority over interior changes to a home, though those may be subject to a building permit. When working with a preservation architect, the character defining features of a home, if intact, should not be removed, however, that does not prevent rehabilitation or expansions to a historic resource.
I would like you to vote against the discussed historical regulations for these reasons.
Please let me know when the planning commission is meeting with the board or by themselves in public on this issue as I and others would like to attend. Thank you.
City Response: Thank you for your interest and comments. We invite you to attend the May 10th public meeting at 5 pm.
Agenda Item #8.1.
FAQ in response to public comments on St. Helena Zoning Code Update • If I propose a remodel to non-conforming structure, do I have to remove the part of the structure that is non-conforming?
Response: No, please refer to 17.09.050 (B). “A nonconforming building structure or physical feature may be remodeled, rehabilitated, or structurally altered if the new work does not increase the degree of nonconformity.” To further clarify, a remodel such as adding a window or shade structure to a non-conforming structure does not require the non-conforming component of the structure be eliminated. • Nonconforming Code addition Chapter 17.09.050 (A) creates problems for owners of non-conforming structures who desire to expand:
“Nor shall any nonconforming building, structure or other physical feature be absorbed, remodeled into or made part of, all or in part, any other building, structure or other physical feature unless all nonconforming portions, items or aspects are brought into conformance.”
Response: Upon further review and consideration of the older building stock in the City, much of which was built prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance, if the City did codify this added provision to the code, staff agrees it would prevent many homeowners from bring able to add code compliant additions to their existing homes.
One of the objectives of the code update was to allow property owners to invest in and expand the use of their properties so for this reason, staff recommends that this provision be removed from the code, subject to confirmation of policy direction by the City Council.
• FAR -why is it being deleted?
Response: Early public feedback in the code update process expressed concern that new homes were utilizing the maximum FAR and producing new residences that were large and out of scale with surrounding residential character. There are other methods to limit the size of new homes and establishing a maximum footprint size for the primary structure is one of the new standards proposed. Please also refer to the General Plan policy CD3.1 which specifically states that building envelope sizes should be limited in residential neighborhoods. Also please refer to policy and research article from UC Berkley Terner Center for Housing Innovation which indicates (highlight added):
Agenda Item #8.1.
“Findings
While most cities do not use FAR to control building size for residential development, the 1.5 FAR standard in SB 478 would exceed the current residential multifamily FAR in 85% of localities.”
The full article can be found here: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-andpolicy/sb-478-far-lot-size-requirements/ • Why regulating residential by footprint size?
Response: Please see General Plan policy CD3.1 reference in above response. • Why requiring second story stepback?
Response: A common design standard for second stories involves a stepback to help reduce the overall scale and mass of two story structure. Additionally, this design standard implements General Plan policy CD 3.2.
Staff and consultant have added an additional standard to the design standards that would waive the requirement for a second story stepback if a front porch is integrated into the design (see photo example below) as this creates the similar outcome of reducing the building massing on the front façade.
Agenda Item #8.1.
• Will adopting Objective Standards reduce creativity and create cookie cutter look? Response: Objective standards add more certainty to builders and architects as there is more clarity on what design standards are acceptable while still allowing each residence to have its own individual expression. Since the release of the public review draft and the December 7th public meeting, updates have been made to the design standards section
17.16.040. Some of the key recommended changes to the design standards which respond to the request for “less regulation” include:
o Removed color standards
o Removed roof pitch standards
o Removed plate height requirement
o Removed building transparency section
o Removed requirement for side and rear second story stepbacks o Added front porches as an acceptable design alternative to a front second story stepback
o Updated and expanded list of acceptable materials
• “The City needs to fully vet all these concerns now as the code should not be undergoing additional change post adoption.”
Response: To date, the City has conducted 3 public meetings on the public review draft, not including numerous public meetings prior to the release of the zoning code. Attached to the May 10th, 2023 staff report are comment trackers noting all the comments received since the release of the draft in the fall of 2023. Over 300 comments have been responded to and in response, staff and consultant have recommended some additional refinements to the draft code.
Big picture-all zoning codes post adoption undergo some adjustments to make best fit for the community.
Agenda Item #8.1.
€99
(N
napa valleyVintners
May 4, 2023
Maya DeRosa, AICP
Community Development Director
City of St. Helena, Planning Department
1480 Main Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
Dear Ms. DeRosa:
On behalf of the Napa Valley Vintners, I am writing to provide comments on the City of St.
Helena's Zoning Code Update (Update).
As you may be aware, the Napa Valley Vintners (NW) is a non-profit trade association that represents more than 540 wineries in the Napa Valley. Our offices have been in the City of St.
Helena for more than two decades and several of our members have established, long—standing wineries within the City limits and would be subject to the changes contemplated within the Update.
Aspects of the Update were recently discussed at the NW’s Community and industry issues Committee, which made recommendations that were supported by the NW’s Board of Directors in April.
The NW recommends that on the three issues discussed below, the City utilize established definitions and methods currently used by Napa County. Alignment with the County on these issues would eliminate confusion, support overall business continuity, and give City planning staff reference resources for future implementation.
Certificates of Legal Non-Conformity
These comments are in alignment with others already submitted by wineries subject to the zoning code. We agree that the implementation of a certificate of extent of legal nonconformity ("CLN") process in Chapter 17.09 of the Zoning Code Update provides wineries with a useful tool to NW supports the recommendation that non-residential CLN applications be directed to the Community Development Director, rather than the Planning Commission. This will ensure that the review process is consistent with Napa County's successful CLN process, which is decided by its Zoning Administrator. A Planning Commission hearing may not be the most suitable platform for adjudicating existing rights through a CLN, as it is designed for reviewing proposed future development and reviewing CLN applications with extensive histories would monopolize valuable time resources. post of?ce box 141 st. helena, california 94574 tel 707 963 3388 fax 707 963 3488 www.napavintners.com Agenda Item #8.1.
Second, the NW supports the recommendation that the CLN process should give weight to previously issued City permits and allow reasonable inferences from those permits on approved activities. We agree that the standard of proof should not assume that permits issued decades ago willhave the same level of detailed documentation as more modern permits. When reviewing evidence in relation to a CLN application, the standard of proof should include a presumption that previously issued permits were validly issued and that those permits were intended to allow for activities that could reasonably occur within approved structures.
Adding or Replacing Additional Tanks
The NW further agrees that requiring a conditional use permit approval for the construction of new tanks can be burdensome for wineries, as there may be several reasons why additional tanks are needed that do not relate to increasing production. In otherjurisdictions, tanks are viewed more as equipment, and use permits are only required ifthere is a change in the intensity of permitted winery production. For instance, the County of Napa has adopted a ministerial Administrative Use Permit process that is less time-consuming, costly, and data-intensive to address minor changes in the wine—makingprocess that do not impact intensity of use. We support the City adopting a similar model.
Defining Wine Production
The NW supports the City of St. Helena adopting Napa County's de?nition of “wine production.” Our Cl|C committee and Board agree that including "all bottled wine received on the premises during the same year" in the definition of production may lead to double counting for wineries. As noted by another comment letter, some wineries may bottle their wine offsite and store it elsewhere for a period of time. When wine from a different vintage is brought back to the winery for sale or storage, it is very likelythat it will be a different vintage that was accounted for in a different year and has nothing to do with production.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to helping the City see the Update through to it's adoption.
Sincerely,
V W?m
Michelle Novi
Industry Relations and Regulatory Affairs Director
Napa Valley Vintners
Co: St. Helena City Council
post office box 141 st. helena, california 94574 tel 707 963 3388 fax 707 963 3488 wvvw.napavintners.com Agenda Item #8.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:20 AM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FW: [External] Redline of objective design standards Hi Cindy, please post the comment below to the 5/10 joint meeting agenda, thanks!
MAYA DEROSA, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 5:18 PM
To: Polly Ogden <[email protected]>; Jennifer La Liberte <[email protected]>; Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Cc: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>; greg desmond <[email protected]>; Dan Hale <[email protected]>; Roger Eastman <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [External] Redline of objective design standards Hi Maya/Roger:
I finally got a chance to review your response to my (and others) input re: Design Standards.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to accommodate many of the requests.
While it is not perfect still, it has improved since the last draft.
I am still very concerned regarding the upstairs open space (ie. balcony) requirement for Multi‐Family. 60 (sixty) SF is still too large. That is a 10' x 6' balcony.
These apartment projects are nearly impossible to pull off financially and provide much needed workforce housing.
I highly encourage the staff to reconsider reducing this further by at least 50% more (<= 32 SF).
St. Helena is full of parks and walking paths and has easy access to the outdoors.
What it doesn't have is enough workforce affordable apartments units.
Please help us build these more economically.
Thx,
Joe
Agenda Item #8.1.
2 On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 8:02 AM Polly Ogden <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you, Maya. Really appreciate this. I will pick up my copy today. --
Polly Ogden
Polly Ogden Associates
Phone: 707.963.7999
Cell: 707.363.7247
Email: [email protected]
From: Maya DeRosa [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 5:16 PM
To: [email protected]; Polly Ogden <[email protected]>; greg desmond <[email protected]>; Dan Hale <[email protected]>
Cc: Roger Eastman <[email protected]>
Subject: Redline of objective design standards
Good afternoon Joe, Polly, Greg and Dan,
As you may know, the City is preparing for the next public meeting on the zoning code update and has been working many hours on addressing the comments we received from the public meetings in in 2022. Roger and I appreciate the time that each of you invested in reviewing the code and we know there were a number of comments and concerns about the objective design standards. We have responded to each of those in the comment tracker which will be published with the staff report. Additionally, we have complete a redline of the chapter on the residential design standards and have a courtesy copy for you to review in advance of the next public meeting planned for May 10th at 5 pm. I hope you will see that we have made some significant changes to remove what may appear as limitations and in turn add more clarity as well.
The City will be issuing a press release about the upcoming meeting date and should have the agenda packet ready for publishing early the week of May 1st.
Agenda Item #8.1.
3 The redline hard copy is available for you to pick up at the Building counter during our open office hours. It is not for public distribution so I ask that you not circulate it. There will be ample time for the general public to review that and all the other staff report materials when published.
If you would like to share any feedback with Roger and I prior to submitting public comment we welcome that communication via a call or meeting or email.
Thank you,
Maya
MAYA DEROSA, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning
Agenda Item #8.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Mark Smithers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 8:46 PM
To: Paul Dohring; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy; Anna Chouteau; Billy Summers Cc: Anil Comelo; Maya DeRosa; Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: [External] Zoning code update meeting May 10 - Small Winery Ordinance To our Mayor and all City Council members,
Thank you all for your service and the many hours you spend for our community.
I will not be able to attend the joint zoning meeting scheduled for May 10 and will express my concerns in this email. In general, I appreciate the city’s efforts to update our zoning codes and make them clearer and work better for all. However, I’m concerned with a couple of comments and suggested changes related to areas within the Small Winery Ordinance. As we all know the Small Winery Ordinance is very important to ensure our neighborhoods are not industrialized by wineries out of character and beyond scope with their locations.
Nowhere in the communication to date has it been pointed out to the public that the Small Winery Ordinance was up for change. That should have been broadcast loud and clear. Most importantly, it is not appropriate to make piecemeal changes to the Small Winery Ordinance. If our city wants to take up the ordinance and consider changes, it should be its own separate public process such that we can all focus on it, be reminded of the purposes behind its regulations and requirements, and make well thought out changes if warranted.
The first area of the ordinance suggested for change is the requirement that the owner lives on the premises. One small winery owner has suggested this restriction be removed. To review the intent of the regulation:
“Allowing the development of small wineries is also intended to support the establishment of smaller, locally owned and operated wineries. The Small Winery is distinguished from the larger wineries that are allowed in the W: Winery zoning district and other specified commercial zoning districts because small wineries are accessory uses to the primary residential use of a property, and because public events and public‐oriented uses are not permitted at the small wineries.”
“Small wineries shall be an accessory use to a residential use. The residential use shall be the primary residence of the winery owner or winery operator.”
It is important for the family small winery owner to live on the premises as the winery itself is an industrial activity within a neighborhood and as such neighbors are able to have direct communications with their winery neighbor if there are issues due to noise, odors, non‐approved activities, etc. Additionally, if the city were to remove the family small winery owner living on the premises requirement, this would encourage more second home ownership. Our housing shortage is significant. Any change to our regulations that would create more absentee owners would worsen the situation. (Additionally, as we saw with short‐term rentals, corporate ownership of small neighborhood wineries would open up pandora’s box. The small winery home would be a revolving door of guests not concerned with adjacent families and neighbors.) Small wineries are supposed to be family wineries.
Agenda Item #8.1.
2 The second area of the ordinance suggested for change is the fruit sourcing. Currently 85% of the fruit for a small family winery is required to be grown from their own contiguous vineyards. To review the regulation:
“A minimum of eighty‐five percent (85%) of the grape source utilized for the wine produced at the small winery shall be grown on the premises and contiguous parcels as approved by use permit.” “There shall be a direct correlation between the yearly production limit of the small winery and the anticipated tonnage of grapes. A general guideline for establishing the production limit is 1,000 gallons per acre of vineyard planted on the property where the small winery is located; however, the general guideline can vary depending upon the crop yield of the particular vineyard.”
The 85% requirement is important to ensure the small winery is “sized” properly and is consistent with the total size of the contiguously owned properties that include the small winery. If the city enlarged the sourcing to include any grapes from within St Helena city limits, you most likely would end up with some LARGE small wineries completely inconsistent and not in proportion to the size of the property hosting the small winery. The small winery would no longer be an accessory use to the residence and vineyards. Larger wineries require more deliveries, more visitors, more noise, more odors, etc. This could industrialize certain neighborhoods (Vallejo, Fulton, Scott, Sulphur Springs, South Crane, Pratt, upper Madrona, Dean York).
Of note, small wineries generally don’t provide much revenue to our city. They sell wine to mailing list customers; sales tax is collected in the county the wine is received. So we don’t receive much sales tax and we receive little property tax (most property tax goes to the school district). As such, revenue is not a reason to loosen their requirements.
Please do not make piecemeal changes to the Small Winery Ordinance. These regulations went through much discussion and were developed to preserve our neighborhoods where they exist. I remind you there are some 120 sites within St Helena that could allow development of a small winery. If the city loosens the requirements intended to support small family wineries, many of the sites will be developed by speculators and corporations resulting in dramatic changes to St Helena and its wonderful neighborhoods.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Mark Smithers
Mark Smithers | Senior Vice President, Finance
Trinchero Family Estates
Office: 707‐302‐3027 | Ext. 2612 | Mobile: 707‐290‐4508 [email protected]
Confidentiality Notice: This message, and any documents, files or previous e‐mail messages attached to it, is the property of Trinchero Family Estates or its affiliates. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non‐public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e‐mail and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading or saving them to disk or other storage medium. Thank you.
Agenda Item #8.1.
From: Kelly Wheaton
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Comment on Zoning Update
Date: Saturday, May 6, 2023 11:16:40 AM
To: Mayor Dohring, City Council and Planning commissioners.
I previously made a comment about Zoning ordinances addressing basements and underground facilities like wine caves. The response was "Typically underground spaces are excluded from zoning development standards as they do not impact building massing. No change recommended. Confirmed in email exchange with City staff Feb. 13, 2023." I would like to point out that carving underground spaces out of the existing landscape has a great impact on what you can see above ground. To wit the project on Madrona and Fir Hill with over 7,000sf of basement will mean the removal of at least 70,000 cubic feet of dirt. It means tons of concrete will be poured and it means that 50,000 cubic feet of groundwater will be displaced in times of high rainfall. This means that when the groundwater reaches the surface and is causing sheet flooding you will be adding a huge volume of water to the already taxed system. The sizing of water retention basins and swales is not adequately sized to deal with this displacement.
The sump pumps required to keep the basement free of water are also an environmental concern. Just because we don't see its mass above ground does not mean that we should not be paying attention to what happens below ground. I URGE the council and Planning to address this gaping hole in EITHER in the new Zoning Update or when considering the new Water Regulations.
Thank you.
Kelly Wheaton
Agenda Item #8.1.
From: Mariam Hansen
To: Public Comment
Cc: Maya DeRosa
Subject: [External] CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING | COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE UPDATE
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:45:34 AM
Regarding the new Historic Preservation overlay zoning proposed, here are my comments:
The City of St. Helena streetscape, historic fabric and the past are being replaced one by one. Someday the town will be unrecognizable and filled with “modern farmhouses” in a bland, but trendy world.
What are the values St. Helena purports to stand for? It “embraces and retains its historic, small-town character, beautiful natural environment and high quality of life”.
If this is true, it must be reflected in city actions, such as approving the Historic Preservation Overlay zoning. Property owners have an economic interest, which (for them) trumps our historic, small town character. This must not happen.
Please save our historic structures and approve the new HP overlay zoning.
Mariam Hansen
Agenda Item #8.1.
5~lO-23 St. Hclc11z1Ci1yLtr.docx.pdf ?le:///C:/Users/info/Downloads/5-10-23%2OSt.%20Hclei1zi%20Cit...
Docuslgn Envelope ID: CFSBAZGE-ASC4—428F-9A5B~AA72B6BD98BA I oft
NAPA COUNTY LANDMARKS
J 937 Coombs Street
Napa, CA 94559 l 707—255~1836
“ “, _.
_ wvvw.napacounty|andmarks.org
NAPA COUNTY LANDMARKS
— PRESERVATION -
May 10, 2023
Mayor Paul Dohring
St. Helena City Council
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Mayor Dohring,
Napa County Landmarks (NCL) supports the City of St. Helena Zoning Ordinance update and the inclusion of a Historic Preservation Overlay.
The intent of the proposed Historic Preservation Overlay zone is not to prevent improvements and additions to existing historic buildings and structures but to provide design standards that ensure exterior changes respect the important architectural features of a historic resource.
The City of St. Helena currently has an adopted Historic Preservation Overlay District, however, very few properties are designated within this overlay, given the number of eligible resources in St Helena. Most of the undesignated resources could be vulnerable to alterations and demolition without proper designation.
NCL agrees that CEQA offers protections to those resources that meet the criteria of a historic resource. However, the proposed HP Overlay establishes a number of important implementation actions from General Plan that St. Helena adopted in 2019.
In conclusion, NCL supports the City of St Helena Zoning Ordinance update and the provisions of the Historic Preservation Overlay as detailed in the Staff Report to the City Council. The proposed changes willrespect the rights of property owners while preserving St. Helena‘s built heritage for future generations.
Sincerely,
Fmcwlgnud by: Docu?igntd by:
'rm,w....a4zz4 [;7;Q,<‘.§(,(_ L—-F42 l536FE€UD43E,. F42153-?FE6?D43E. Terry Wunderlich Ernest Schlobohm Executive Director
Napa County Landmarks
Board President
Napa County Landmarks
NAPA COUNTY LANDMARKS fosters appreciation and preservation of historic buildings, sites and districts through education programs, public policy, research, and technical assistance. 5/l()/2023, 1:49 PM
Agenda Item #8.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 12:43 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: FW: [External] Redline of objective design standards Please post to public comment for 5/10.
MAYA DEROSA, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:51 AM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Cc: Joe McGrath <[email protected]>; Polly Ogden <[email protected]>; greg desmond <[email protected]>; Daniel Hale <[email protected]>; Roger Eastman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [External] Redline of objective design standards Hi Maya,
I thought it might be helpful to add that for affordable projects, the financing source (often Tax Credits or TCAC) has limitations on project costs, and it requires public open space in its funded projects. Often city codes require private open space at certain ratio like what SH is proposing, which then makes the open space requirements somewhat duplicative and costly. Perhaps a provision that makes the open space an either/or scenario where private open space can be traded for public open space would be a good compromise (we think Healdsburg has that in their code as an example).
Also, balconies can pose other problems like water intrusion and storage of items that can become unsightly, and are often not utilized for their intended purposes. Burbank Housing’s pipeline projects don’t have private balconies for these reasons and the maintenance costs that ensue. Based on Burbank’s extensive experience, balconies tend not to be used for their intended purposes, they don’t create a sense of community because they aren’t active spaces, and they become eyesores that collect junk. It would be nice to promote active, useable open space, especially in family projects.
Thank you for your consideration. You may include this in public comments.
Jen
On May 9, 2023, at 8:00 AM, Maya DeRosa <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you Joe for your email and feedback. We certainly want to minimize cost barriers for building multi-family while also balancing quality of life for residents. Let me review this Agenda Item #8.1.
2 request with Roger and please also confirm if you would like this comment submitted for public comment on Wednesday?
MAYA DEROSA, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning <image001.png>
From: Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 5:18 PM
To: Polly Ogden <[email protected]>; Jennifer La Liberte <[email protected]>; Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Cc: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>; greg desmond <[email protected]>; Dan Hale <[email protected]>; Roger Eastman <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [External] Redline of objective design standards
Hi Maya/Roger:
I finally got a chance to review your response to my (and others) input re: Design Standards.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to accommodate many of the requests.
While it is not perfect still, it has improved since the last draft.
I am still very concerned regarding the upstairs open space (ie. balcony) requirement for Multi‐Family. 60 (sixty) SF is still too large. That is a 10' x 6' balcony.
These apartment projects are nearly impossible to pull off financially and provide much needed workforce housing.
I highly encourage the staff to reconsider reducing this further by at least 50% more (<= 32 SF).
St. Helena is full of parks and walking paths and has easy access to the outdoors.
What it doesn't have is enough workforce affordable apartments units.
Please help us build these more economically.
Thx,
Joe
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 8:02 AM Polly Ogden <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you, Maya. Really appreciate this. I will pick up my copy today. --
Polly Ogden
Polly Ogden Associates
Agenda Item #8.1.
3 Phone: 707.963.7999
Cell: 707.363.7247
Email: [email protected]
From: Maya DeRosa [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 5:16 PM
To: [email protected]; Polly Ogden <[email protected]>; greg desmond <[email protected]>; Dan Hale <[email protected]> Cc: Roger Eastman <[email protected]>
Subject: Redline of objective design standards
Good afternoon Joe, Polly, Greg and Dan,
As you may know, the City is preparing for the next public meeting on the zoning code update and has been working many hours on addressing the comments we received from the public meetings in in 2022. Roger and I appreciate the time that each of you invested in reviewing the code and we know there were a number of comments and concerns about the objective design standards. We have responded to each of those in the comment tracker which will be published with the staff report. Additionally, we have complete a redline of the chapter on the residential design standards and have a courtesy copy for you to review in advance of the next public meeting planned for May 10th at 5 pm. I hope you will see that we have made some significant changes to remove what may appear as limitations and in turn add more clarity as well.
The City will be issuing a press release about the upcoming meeting date and should have the agenda packet ready for publishing early the week of May 1st.
The redline hard copy is available for you to pick up at the Building counter during our open office hours. It is not for public distribution so I ask that you not circulate it. There will be ample time for the general public to review that and all the other staff report materials when published.
If you would like to share any feedback with Roger and I prior to submitting public comment we welcome that communication via a call or meeting or email.
Thank you,
Maya
MAYA DEROSA, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning <image001.png>
Jennifer La Liberte
Executive Director, Our Town St. Helena
(707) 812‐9839 cell
Agenda Item #8.1.
Tamara Traeder
834 Pope St.
St. Helena CA 94574
May 5, 2023
Maya DeRosa
Community Development Director
City of St. Helena
St. Helena CA 94574
[by email]
Dear Ms. DeRosa:
Thank you for your work on the proposed zoning plan for St. Helena. I have owned the property at 834 Pope Street since 1999. The property includes my home and two barns, and is bounded by Pope Street, Miely Park and Sulphur Creek. I have reviewed the provisions related to the Historic Preservation Overlay District (HPOD), public comments on these provisions and recent staff responses to these comments. I have several questions and concerns related to these provisions. In particular, I am concerned that the imposition of a HPOD designation upon my property (and others) has been done without sufficient notice, that it has a detrimental effect on the value of my property and that my property rights are being taken without compensation.
1. Support for inclusion/process for delisting. I am wondering where I can find the support for inclusion of a particular property on the HPOD. I do not recall receiving notice that my home had been designated a historical property, the basis for the designation or the consequences, and would like to understand what historical significance my property represents. Per the proposed requirements, would I need to apply to the Planning Commission to declassify my property?
2. Additional costs and restrictions on property owner without compensation. The staff cites a student’s dissertation to support the idea that historical designations improve property values (although the author of the dissertation also acknowledges that restrictions imposes additional costs on individual property owners). I leave aside the question of whether higher property values are an appropriate goal for a community when housing and retail space is already out of reach for so many people and businesses. Also, without questioning the advisability of relying on one dissertation to support policy change, the paper addressed the value of historical districts (whole neighborhoods or downtowns) in which presumably multiple properties complement each other and create a particular atmosphere. However, the designation of individual homes that are surrounded by new or newer homes, apartment buildings and modern subdivisions seems to put an unfairly heavy load on a single property to impart a historical atmosphere.
These additional zoning restrictions impose a layer of regulation and limitations on changes to a property, increasing their costs of repairs and maintenance, making it more difficult to make desired updates, and likely reducing the number of available buyers. What benefits do owners of the HPOD homes receive in exchange for these costs and loss? In other communities (such as the relatively newly established San Diego South Park historical district), subjecting a property to historical restrictions offers benefits for doing so, such as a reduction in property taxes and other benefits. These mandatory restrictions, imposed after owners have purchased properties without these restrictions, appear to be taking value from our properties without compensation.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Tamara Traeder
834 Pope St.
St. Helena CA 94574
3. Coverage. Do the provisions cover all sides of the property or the street facing side? On my particular property, one side faces the street, and two sides face a public walkway through a neighboring park. Are all three sides subject to these restrictions?
4. Coverage and maintenance requirements. Do the provisions cover all ancillary buildings on the property? In the comments, staff referred to historic resource demolition reports (required to demolish an old building) as a means to discourage “demolition by neglect.” Can you define this? For instance, I have two old barns on my property, neither of which are habitable or useful except for storage of garden materials (and have not been since my purchase). They are also immediately adjacent to Sulphur Creek, and any work on them may require relief from possibly onerous environmental requirements. What am I expected to do and spend to maintain these buildings? If a homeowner cannot afford to do so, are there funds available to support such projects?
5. Roofing materials. It appears in the comments that corrugated metal roofs are not a material that would be allowed for properties in the HPOD, although in a response to one of Dan Hale’s comments, the staff indicates that these roofs will be allowed in all districts. Please clarify. If there is a restriction on HPOD properties, and if there are corrugated roofs currently on my outbuildings, would I not be able to replace them with the same material?
6. Environmental updates. How does one update one’s home to service environmental needs? For instance, my front facing windows are extremely inefficient and were likely handcrafted.
Replacing them would be an environmentally appropriate step, yet if I am required to do so with something similarly constructed, it would be prohibitively expensive. In the city’s response to Roy Piper’s email that asked a similar question, it was noted that “The City currently relies on historic reports prepared by architectural historians to determine what architectural features need to be retained.” Are these reports currently available or are they to be prepared in each instance? At whose cost?
7. ADU construction. If I were to replace my current barns with an ADU to support additional housing availability (presumably a desirable community goal), what would be required and how would it be different from ADU construction for a non-HPOD property? (I have had two architects look at the barns for this purpose, and both agreed that the current structures were not viable structures to convert to housing.)
In general, I do not believe that HPOD property owners are aware of the restrictions that are being imposed on them, and need more time to understand the full extent of these provisions.
Because of work obligations, I was not able to attend the November 2022 meeting about the HPOD, and the joint city council/planning commissions meeting I attended re the proposed zoning changes primarily addressed other proposed zoning provisions. I respectfully request that there be additional time to inform property owners and discuss the HPOD.
Thank you for your consideration.
Tamara Traeder
Agenda Item #8.1.
May 9, 2023
Sent Electronically ([email protected])
Ms. Maya DeRosa
Community Development Director
Planning Department
City of St. Helena
1480 Main St.
St. Helena, CA 94574
RE: Public MeeƟng #4 for Zoning Code Update – LeƩer of Support Dear Ms. DeRosa,
My name is Terrence M. McGrath, and I am wriƟng to express my strong support for the proposed zoning code update, which is scheduled for a planning hearing on May 10, 2023.
As a local resident and acƟve member of the St. Helena community, I believe the zoning code update will greatly benefit our area and improve the lives of our community members and those visiƟng the city.
Specifically, I believe that the zoning code update aligns with the visions and goals of the city, addressing several criƟcal needs in our community. The following are some key reasons why I support the zoning code update:
1. Economic Growth: The update will contribute to the economic growth of our community by aƩracƟng new businesses and helping exisƟng businesses grow their operaƟons. AddiƟonally, the update will make it easier for businesses to offer services to the large number of visitors to the area by promoƟng businesses along Main Street.
2. Sustainable Development: The update will beƩer enable sustainable developments within our community by reducing parking requirements for pedestrian focused developments, adding and clarifying design standards, and improving the permiƫng process. Removing the covered parking requirement will also help with these issues.
3. Housing: The update will also aid with much‐needed housing opƟons, including affordable units, and essenƟal community services to help create a more inclusive and connected community.
I understand that there may be concerns from some community members about the impact of the zoning code update. However, I believe that the City of St. Helena staff (including its Planning Department) and the City’s consultant have thoroughly addressed these concerns through careful planning, community engagement, and a commitment to ongoing collaboraƟon with stakeholders.
I urge the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the zoning code update at the upcoming planning hearing. Thank you for considering my leƩer of support. I look forward to the posiƟve impact that the zoning code update will have on our community.
Sincerely,
Terrence M. McGrath
Agenda Item #8.1.
WALKER
WARNER
City of St. Helena
Planning Department
c/o Maya DeRosa
1572 Railroad Ave.
St. Helena, CA 94574
(707) 968-2659
May 10, 2023
Re: 855 Pratt Avenue
APN: 009-O30-O63-000
Dear Ms. DeRosa,
Ijust became aware that the City Council and Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a joint special meeting this evening, May 10, 2023. As you know, I submitted a letter dated December29, 2022, regarding the referenced property and concerns with zoning the property within the HP Overlay District. Due to insufficient public notice, I am not able to attend this evening's meeting, but my position remains the same. Furthermore, due to insufficient public notice, I would respectfully request that this meeting be continued to provide sufficient notice so that I may have an opportunity to attend a meeting and participate in the discussion. Iwould also request to be placed on the notification list for future meetings related to the comprehensive zoning code update.
Best regard ,
Clark Sather
415.318.8910 direct
[email protected]
cc. Mayor Dohring and City Council Members
Planning Commissioners
City Clerk
353 Folsom Street
San Francisco, California 94105
415.318.8900
www.wa|kerwarner.corn
Agenda Item #8.1.
From: Charles Covell
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: [External] Draft Zoning Ordinance
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 7:01:40 AM
From: Charles Covell
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 5:12 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Draft Zoning Ordinance
Dear Ms. DeRosa, Mr. Comelo, Mayor Dohring, Members of City Council and the Planning Commission:
I write from 1700 Park Street, in the Crinella neighborhood regarding the zoning draft under consideration.
Our home is a small single-story ranch style in a neighborhood of similarly styled 1960’s era homes, and is in the MR zoning district. We have three tiny bedrooms and no family room, but sits on over 1/3 of an acre.
We bought the property in 2017, right when we were married. We have dreamed of adding onto it once we could afford to. We have already invested a lot of sweat and money into updating this property. I would be happy to have you drop by and see it (again, for some of you.) Only now we learn that the City is seriously considering mandating a 2000 s.f. maximum footprint for the primary residence in our zoning district. The mandate under consideration would dictate that our addition could never happen, despite our ample lot size. Building codes, CCR’s and finances require that ‘adding on’ would mean adding outward, not upward.
Previously we were only constrained by a floor-area ratio in the neighborhood of 0.28 of lot size.
Constraining the footprint to 2000 s.f. eliminates well over 1000 s.f. we could have added, and technically means that you would rather we tear down 200 s.f of what we have. As my wife, Michelle put it succinctly when I explained the proposed change to her, “What will they do next, tell us how many children we can have?”
It has been suggested that the new regulations are in response to SB 330. However SB 330 was designed to remove legal barriers to residential development, not just to “streamline” the planning application process, which seems to be the stock justification to concerned residents. The footprint and FAR reductions under consideration more severely limit single-family residential development in our zone instead of liberalizing the standards.
I also read that the Community Design section of the General Plan of 2019 was the genesis of these density reduction measures. Perhaps there was some vigorous debate about the wisdom of reducing Agenda Item #8.1.
the allowable footprints and FAR’s that we missed out on, but SB 330 clearly mandates against “downzoning,” i.e. development density reduction. These mandates appear to me to function as a form of backdoor downzoning for single family residences, which is the primary use of the MR zoning district (17.040.020).
The proposed regulations also impose numerous ‘one-size fits all’ design standards that never previously existed, would increase the cost of design, and throttle the eclectic character of St Helena. As former Planning Commissioner Dan Hale wrote in his public comments, “The City should not be engaged in the design business.” Other local design professionals echoed similar comments.
I was glad to see that a number of the design regulations have since been scrapped. What would truly streamline the planning process is to forgo them altogether, and leave design matters to professionals. Failing that, we ask that you, as a representative of our city, please appoint a committee of locals with design, legal and planning expertise to bring a more measured and informed approach to revising the zoning ordinance.
I appreciate the time, effort, and good intentions that have gone into creating the zoning draft. I also appreciate where liberalization is occurring in the CBD. However, we are very alarmed and concerned that so many radical changes are being considered that would negatively impact the usability of the residential property we have sacrificed so much to own and restore; and expect that many others who do not read zoning codes would be as well.
Sincerely,
Charles and Michelle Covell
Agenda Item #8.1.
505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 620
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
TELEPHONE: 415.814.6400
FACSIMILE: 415.814.6401
[email protected]
CHRISTINE R. WADE
DIRECT TEL: 415.243.2088
[email protected]
May 10, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Maya DeRosa, Director
Planning and Building Department
1572 Railroad Avenue, St. Helena, CA 945
[email protected]
Re: Proposed Ordinance – Historic Preservation Overlay
855 Pratt Avenue, St Helena – APN 009-030-063-000 (“Property”) May 10, 2023 – Special Joint City Council Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item - 8
Dear Ms. DeRosa,
This firm represents the Owner of the above-referenced Property and submits this comment letter on the Owner’s behalf.
I previously provided written comments regarding this proposal in December 2022.
When I submitted those comments, I specifically asked to be added to any and all public notices related to this proposed ordinance. I did not, however, receive notice of the May 10, 2023 meeting as requested and as a result have not been able to adjust my schedule to attend this meeting in person.
The failure to notify individuals who specifically request notification is a violation of state law and warrants either rescheduling this meeting or at the very least, continuing this meeting to a future date without closing the public comment period. I understand that I am not the only individual who has previously requested notice regarding this proposed ordinance and did not receive such notice.
I have reviewed staff’s responses to my comments and the other comments submitted on behalf of my client.
Agenda Item #8.1.
MAYA DEROSA
May 10, 2023
Staff response acknowledges that the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) already provides significant protection for historic resources as do various sections of St.
Helena’s municipal code. The staff response does not address the significant burden that these additional regulations will place on property owners, particularly homeowners, as well as limited St. Helena city staff. In a time where many municipalities are implementing procedures to streamline permitting, this proposal would add significant time and expense for homeowners in St. Helena.
Regarding the possibility of demolition of a listed structure, staff’s response points to Section 17.05.040 (which was indeed referenced in my letter), but does not address the actual issue. The provisions of the proposed ordinance need to be amended to clearly indicate that listed structures are eligible for demolition under those provisions.
In addition, the ordinance must provide property owners the chance to establish that a building or structure does NOT meet the necessary criteria. This is particularly evident, given that the survey relied on is over 15 years old and buildings identified therein may have significantly deteriorated and lost the necessary integrity in that time. There is no provision for this in the current draft.
Staff acknowledges that the proposed ordinance ignores structures that were either missed by the 2006 survey or those that may have since or at some point in the future, become historically significant. The result is an unfair burden on those properties that happened to have made the preliminary list 17 years ago, highlighting the haphazard nature of this proposal.
My letter pointed out that the proposed standards violate due process because they are vague and unclear. Fairness and regulatory efficiency dictate that local ordinances contain clear standards that result in predictable decisions by staff and review commissions and limit administrative discretion. Staff’s response is merely to cite two subsections in Section 17.21.040, which does nothing to address the confusing and contradictory language in the proposal. The summary dismissal of this comment raises the question as to the purpose of having public comment on the proposed ordinances at all.
Agenda Item #8.1.
MAYA DEROSA
May 10, 2023
In short, although I am unable to attend this meeting to state my client’s case, my client remains opposed to the imposition of these standards generally and on the property at 855 Pratt Avenue in particular. We once again respectfully request that the City reconsider this proposed overlay district or at least consider significant modifications to the language to address the comments set forth above.
Sincerely,
SSL LAW FIRM LLP
Christine R. Wade
cc:
Planning Department
• Aaron Hecock (Senior Planner) - [email protected] Planning Commission
• John Ponte (Chair) - [email protected]
• Autumn Anderson (Vice Chair) - [email protected] • Christopher Warner - [email protected]
• Rosaura Segura - [email protected]
• Marika Rothfeld - [email protected]
City Council
• Paul Dohring (Mayor) - [email protected]
• Eric Hall (Vice Mayor) - [email protected]
• Anna Chouteau - [email protected]
• Lester Hardy - [email protected]
• Billy Summers - [email protected]
City Manager
• Anil Comelo - [email protected]
Agenda Item #8.1.
Engine Real Estate
1360 Main Street
Suite D, 2nd Floor
St. Helena, CA 94574 P:
310-625-7009
www.enginerealestate.com
May 10, 2023
Maya DeRosa
Community Development Director
&
Anil Comelo
City Manager
City of St. Helena
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: Public Comment to Comprehensive Zoning Code Update
Dear Planning Commission & City Council:
I would like to start by thanking the Planning Commission, City Council, and all its participants for the extraordinary effort to revise the current zoning codes. As a stakeholder within St. Helena, I very much appreciate the detailed and thoughtful approach that has been taken to make the necessary updates to the St. Helena Zoning Code and I fully support the proposed revisions.
As an owner of several properties within the Central Business District (CB), I have comments and suggestions regarding the following topics as they pertain to the CB. These suggestions are meant to be constructive to further enhance the economic viability of St.
Helena, not just for the benefit of commercial property owners, but for the community at large. The result will create higher tax revenues and more vibrant businesses that in turn, will have a positive impact on the continued viability of St. Helena.
Section 17.17.020 Use Regulations and 17.17.040 Design Standards I am in favor of the expansion as to what is permitted via a Minor Use Permit (“MUP”)/staff level review as well as additional permitted business uses. This will allow for a more varied and welcomed tenant base within the CB. In particular, the expansion to include restaurant uses under an MUP will go a long way toward attracting additional food service tenants that will enhance foot traffic along Main Street.
The general goal should be to continue to look for ways to enhance the vibrancy and foot traffic with the CB, through the more streamlined MUP process. The expansion of permitted uses will allow property owners to attract a broader array of tenants, allowing for a much more vibrant and diversified tenant and tax base.
Section 17.21.030 Parking Exemption District
I strongly support adopting the new code to remove the current parking requirements. The current requirements place an undo burden on property owners and Agenda Item #8.1.
Engine Real Estate
1360 Main Street
Suite D, 2nd Floor
St. Helena, CA 94574 P:
310-625-7009
www.enginerealestate.com
constrains new commercial investment throughout downtown. A longer-term parking solution should continue to be explored as part of a comprehensive parking plan, but we need to act now while we work through that solution.
Section 17.05.020 Conditional Use Permits and 17.22.120 Formula Businesses The current proposed expansion to allow certain formula businesses within the CB is a positive step forward which I strongly support.
I would further propose an interim “multi-store” category, not subject to the fourstore cap be established, that differentiates a proposed permitted multi-store business from a formulaic business (i.e., Starbucks or the Gap). I would further allow for the approval of the formula business to be subject to a Minor Use Permit versus a CUP, provided that the use is otherwise permitted. These actions will result in a more economically viable downtown tenant base, without sacrificing the small-town integrity of St. Helena.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present my thoughts. Once again, I strongly support the proposed modifications and direction set forth by Maya DeRosa and the Planning Commission staff. I believe the zoning code modifications presented in the Report to the City Council represent a necessary and great leap forward, that we can build upon.
Sincerely,
David Walker
President
Agenda Item #8.1.
Lone Cypress Consulting, LLC
Erik V. Lundquist, AICP, 2105 Main Street, Napa, CA 94559, Phone 707.888.6386, [email protected] Via Email
May 9, 2023
Honorable Mayor Dohring, City Council and Planning Commission Members 1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: Comprehensive Zoning Code Update
A-20 Agricultural Zoning District & HP Overlay District Dear Honorable Mayor Dohring, City Council and Planning Commission Members, I did not receive sufficient notification of the May 10, 2023 Special Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission even though I requested to be placed on the public meeting notification list related to the comprehensive zoning code update and also had signed up to receive notification through the City’s online agenda notification portal. On January 1, 2023, City Clerk Cindy Tzafopoulos confirmed via email that I would receive notification of further meetings related to the comprehensive zoning code update but such notification was not received. On May 3, 2023, I discovered the agenda for the May 10, 2023 meeting only providing 7 day’s advance notice. Unfortunately, due to the inadequate notice of the public meeting I am not able to attend in person and since there does not appear to be the ability to participate virtually, I respectfully request that the matter be continued to a date certain or continued to another date with adequate notice provided wherein the City Council and Planning Commission may consider the matter during another Special Joint Meeting.
As a representative of several property owners within the City of St. Helena, I continue to have major concern with the severity of the HP Overlay District and policy direction of the A-20 zoning District. For the reasons expressed in my December 29, 2022 letter to Ms. DeRosa, the HP Overlay District should not be applied to the property located at 855 Pratt Avenue. Placing the property at 855 Pratt Avenue within the HP Overlay District without reevaluating the 2006 Historical Resource Inventory is placing a heavy constraint on a property without appropriate evaluation of its current validity.
Moreover, the proposed HP Overlay District creates a new administrative responsibility for city staff resulting from the numerous properties planned to be within the HP Overlay District.
Processing all of the design review applications will become cumbersome and time consuming for staff to manage. The public will experience extreme processing delays that will cause frustration with staff and applicants. There is also uncertainty and conflict in the proposed code language related to what authority establishes the local register. For example, proposed Section
17.10.040 of the code indicates in subsection A that Resolution 2019-54 is the established local list but subsection B conflicts by stating that the Planning Commission maintains the register.
Which list will become the actual list? The uncertainty of these seemingly conflicting code provisions creates confusion for staff and the public. More time is needed to work through these issues or explicitly remove the property at 855 Pratt Avenue from the HP Overlay District and local historic resource list to avoid further delay.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Lone Cypress Consulting, LLC
Erik V. Lundquist, AICP, 2105 Main Street, Napa, CA 94559, Phone 707.888.6386, [email protected] The policy direction of the proposed A-20 zoning district development standards are in direct conflict with Measure J, the Agricultural Lands Preservation Initiative of 1990. In essence, Measure J protected valuable lands in the County by directing development within the incorporated city limits. Measure J preserves the larger land holdings outside of the city limits leaving the smaller parcels within the city for light agriculture or urban development. By limiting the A-20 development standards, the city will create an imbalance of agriculture and urban development. Retaining the existing A-20 development standards provides more opportunity to transition development into adjoining agricultural lands rather than a clear agricultural edge within the city limits.
The proposed A-20 zoning district standards will effectively down-zone properties and create development standards that will make allowable uses infeasible. My clients at 855 Pratt Avenue, and others that hold property in the A-20 zoning district, had an investment-back expectation when purchasing the properties under the current regulations. The property appraisals and resulting assessments were, in part, based upon the development potential at the time of purchase. Substantially reducing the development potential substantially reduces the land value.
The proposed A-20 zoning district development standards will make it infeasible to develop safe and habitable Agricultural Employee Housing due to the infrastructure and structural needs of necessary housing. The A-20 development standards also make it infeasible for the property owners to operate the required agricultural uses. Small farmers need space to store equipment and supplies. The limiting nature of the A-20 development standards do not consider or accommodate barns or workshops that will be used to support the onsite agricultural operations.
The proposed A-20 zoning district development standards should be preserved as currently established or revised to include exceptions for Agricultural Employee Housing, barns and hardscapes that support the existing or proposed agricultural operations.
In closing, I respectfully request this matter be continued to a date certain or continued to another date with adequate notice provided wherein the City Council and Planning Commission may consider the matter during another Special Joint Meeting. I would also request that the property located at 855 Pratt Avenue not be included in the HP Overlay District and that the existing A-20 development standards be preserved, as currently established.
Sincerely,
Erik Lundquist, AICP
cc. Maya DeRosa, Planning and Building Director
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #8.1.
Council members, planning commission members, and planning staff, Please the attached letter pertaining to the proposed zoning code update. Thank you for your time.
The conflict of nonconforming aspects within a site not being eliminated within the project scope of an application appears to not have been addressed within staff comments. Best not to leave this up to interpretation. Please kindly address this conflict specifically as it pertains to 17.04.040 rather than referring to 17.09.050 as a response. If I am mistaken in this analysis please kindly clarify as to why.
17.04.040
Initial Completeness Review. The Community Development Director shall determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the date the application is filed and required fee received.
Part II: Administration and Procedures
Incomplete Application. Permits authorizing the use, construction, reconstruction, or alteration of any structure may be withheld when information submitted is inadequate or incomplete. If an application is deemed incomplete, the Community Development Director shall provide a written notification to the applicant listing information necessary to complete the application.
Zoning Code Violations. An application shall not be found complete if conditions exist on the site in violation of this Title or any permit or other approval granted in compliance with this Title, unless the proposed project includes the correction of the violations.
Staff response:
“The commentor is misinterpreting the non‐ conforming draft code which as written in the public review draft, allow for remodeling (not additions) of existing non‐conforming structures. Please refer to 17.09.050 (B) "Remodel, Rehabilitation and Alteration”." Understanding that 17.09.050 addresses the ability for alterations as distinguished from additions the conflict within the code for planning rejection of all applications in violation of the revised code is not addressed by staff response. 17.04.040 specifically states that an application will be deemed incomplete if a condition on the site exists that is in violation of the revised zoning code unless the proposed project includes the correction of the violations.
Any remodel, rehabilitation or alteration is subject to planning approval wether moving a window or interior wall etc. per 17.05.080. An exception or distinction needs to be made regarding complete applications for properties pursuing work under 17.09.050 that contain non-conforming aspects on the site under the new zoning code title.
Please provide clarification as the staff response does not address 17.04.040 as requested. It refers specifically to 17.05.080. This clarification needs to be made as the implication of rejection for any violations to the updated title would render any application for proposed work or use etc as void until the application for the parcel is brought into compliance with all aspects of the new title.
Minor design review and clearly states all site activities require planning approval including repair and maintenance, window relocation etc.
ZWISCHEN STUDIO PO Box 984 St. Helena, CA 94574 p 206.218.5615 f 206.913.3622 Agenda Item #8.1.
17.05.080 Minor Design Review
Purpose. The purpose of the Minor Design Review process is to allow for the administrative review and approval of development applications that do not have site or architectural design impacts.
Applicability. The following activities are subject to all design criteria of the City of St. Helena; however the review shall be conducted administratively by City Planning Staff as a component of the building permit review:
Those activities not described in Section 17.05.070.B.
Any form of repair or maintenance where the work solely involves the replacement of materials in like kind and form or to any such work in areas not visible to the public from the public right-of-way or areas accessible to the public.
The alteration, modification or addition to an existing single-family or multi-family residential structure or building except as identified in Section 17.05.070.B.
The construction of an accessory structure in keeping with all development criteria of the zoning district in which the structure is proposed.
Minor changes to the exterior of existing non-historic nonresidential buildings that require a building permit. This includes, but is not limited to, facade changes, relocation of storefront doors, and relocation of windows.
Changes to a nonresidential site not involving major structural or site changes or changes of use. This includes site alterations such as construction of parking shade structures or other accessory structures; and
The intentional destruction and removal of less than 50 percent of the finished floor within the exterior walls of a non-historic structure in conjunction with a remodel or addition.
17.16.040 Design Standards
The standards in this Section apply to all development within the residential zones. These design standards supplement the development standards of Table 17.16.030: Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts.
A. Design Standards for All Residential Development Types.
1. General Standards. All development is subject to the provisions of Part IV, Citywide Standards.
2. Required Second Story Step-backs in the LR and MR districts. Second stories both in new construction and additions must be stepped back 10 feet from the ground floor front façade and five feet from the ground floor interior side and rear facades.
Many of the properties in St Helena do not adhere to this restriction and many of those that don’t are some of the most prized in town. Why is this requirement put in place? Is it to limit vertical wall presence at street frontage? If this is the case why is it stated as all encompassing regardless of placement of the structure on the lot? Why not simply request that a second story within the district needs to be placed at least 28’ from the front property line. If a project is designed with the front of the main dwelling 40’ from the front property line is the second story still required to be set back? Many of the front porch exception examples used in the city flyer do not meet the proposed 8’ front porch depth that would be required.
This requirement prejudices toward a very specific type of vernacular architecture and is erroneously uniformly applied for every residential project in town. A second story extending over a first story is a desirable configuration that helps serve in a reduction of perceived massing but the option is eliminated with this requirement Why? This requirement should be removed or amended to allow for all forms of architecture integrating a second story. Example photos of existing properties in violation of this standard are attached at the end of the document.
ZWISCHEN STUDIO PO Box 984 St. Helena, CA 94574 p 206.218.5615 f 206.913.3622 Agenda Item #8.1.
Please respond.
Min. Garage or Carport Setback from Building Façade stated as 10’ from building facade in the MR district. The vast majority of houses in the MR do not comply with this. On the one hand we seem to be saying create usable outdoor space, then on the other we are saying the garage or carport has to be pushed into the parcel in the MR. Lot size varies greatly within this district and the implication of requiring theses structures to be pushed into the lot is not a small one. Why is this a requirement in MR? It should be removed.
Please respond.
17.16.040 Design Standards
In the MR district, the front door of any primary single-family unit must be visible to the public street. Why is this a requirement? Is this intentional along with the stated garage setback? These two regulations combined make for a very specific isolated context of lot formation and eliminate diversity of architecture.
We have entry gates, landscaping, primary dwelling units recessed within parcels and other conditions that do not allow compliance with this. This seems to be another solution for a non problem. This should be eliminated as a requirement.
Please respond.
17.06.060 Modifications by City Council
The following provisions shall be observed when the City Council determines to modify any proposed amendment to the General Plan:
The City Council may modify any proposed amendment by making non-substantive changes in the wording of a proposed text amendment. However, any substantive change proposed
Part II: Administration and Procedures
by the City Council that was not discussed by the Planning Commission shall be referred back to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation.
When the City Council has referred a matter back to the Planning Commission, it shall report back to the City Council within 30 days after the date of the City Council referral unless the City Council specifically allows for a longer period of time for the Planning Commission report and recommendation. Where action cannot be taken within 30 days by the Planning Commission, a longer period of time may be requested and the City Council may at its discretion grant such a request. Although no additional public hearing shall be required, the Planning Commission may at its discretion hold a public hearing prior to a report and recommendation on any matter referred to it by the City Council.
What qualifies as “substantive” what is the mechanism for review and change of any section to come before the council and planning commission. Currently a variance application is 5,100$ and an application for zoning code text amendment is 9,600$
The proposed path forward seems to be adopt this iteration and we will continue to tweak after the fact. With all the known major issues left unresolved and the many more to come to light once enacted is a citizen who wants to address an issue expected to pay 9,600$ for each text amendment? There needs to be a more streamlined affordable option available that does not ZWISCHEN STUDIO PO Box 984 St. Helena, CA 94574 p 206.218.5615 f 206.913.3622 Agenda Item #8.1.
require planning commission review coupled with council review.
Why adopt this iteration now with so many aspects clearly in need of attention? Is it due to AB2011 and fear of builder’s remedy? The soon to be adopted HCD certified housing element should eliminate this concern. Please advise wether this is a misinterpretation of the statute. Once AB2011 goes into effect it would seem extending the commercial district further North on main would help to provide opportunity for more affordable housing density while concurrently extending the opportunity for more retail tax revenue.
17.21.040 Historic Preservation Overlay (HP)
How have the properties within the new HP been selected? What were the criteria? Many appear to have no historic significance such as the new commercial development on the corner of Main and Adams.
What is the process of application for a property currently within the district to be removed? There are several sections within the code that need to be amended or eliminated. A few examples are attached below.
iv. Brick surfaces must not be sandblasted in an attempt to remove old paint. Sandblasting damages the natural fired surface of the brick, and causes it to lose its water repellent qualities. Also, mechanical grinders must not be used to remove mortar as this can damage the brick surrounding the joint.
Secretary of Interior’s Standards specifically state that “skilled labor” should be implemented for this endeavor. Eliminating the ability for masons to be able to utilize mechanical grinders could have untended detrimental effects. Most historic brick/masonry buildings were constructed using lime based mortar which regulates moisture and behaves differently than contemporary portland cement based mortars. Portland cement based mortars which need to be abated from historic masonry require grinding tools as they are more dense than the surrounding brick or stone and if attempted to be chipped away the surrounding masonry will remain attached and be damaged. v. Where the original structure includes transom windows in the St. Helena Historic Commercial District, this traditional storefront must be retained. If the ceiling inside the structure has been lowered, the ceiling must be stepped up to meet the transom so that light will penetrate the building interior.
If the intent of the code is preserve the observable architectural fabric of facades why is the condition of the interior of the space addressed within the code? Is there a distance the windows must be open to the interior, if a moment frame was installed within the footprint of interior of the windows is the space in violation of the code? This section seems to be misguided. b. Architectural Considerations.
vi. New structures which are wider that the traditional width must be designed to read as smaller modules reflecting the traditional building widths.
What does this mean?
viii. Design of new development must reflect the horizontal elements of adjacent buildings. Horizontal elements may include an alignment of window frames, roof lines, facades and clear distinction between first floors and upper floors.
ZWISCHEN STUDIO PO Box 984 St. Helena, CA 94574 p 206.218.5615 f 206.913.3622 Agenda Item #8.1.
What is the intent of this requirement? It is contrary to the variation of building facades which make the different eras of historic buildings stand out and differentiates different styles and approaches. Implication of this requirement seems to risk requirement of a false “sameness” of new structures within the commercial district.
c. Single-Family Residences.
ii. Foundation and floor-to-ceiling heights must be aligned within one foot of floor to ceiling heights on adjacent buildings.
What is the intent of this requirement? Is it referring to adjacent buildings on separate parcels? If this is the case many of the HP parcels are adjacent non HP parcels. Does this requirement still apply in these instances? If the goal is to create a historic context then this requirement should certainly be removed. A main house on a parcel would normally be raised on a foundation while a carriage house would be at grade etc. Historic buildings are not limited to the 1800’s and varying degrees of development occurs on parcels over time. This requirement seems contrary to SIS intentions.
From Secretary of Interior’s Standards:
NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION
RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
RecommendedDesigning new construction on a historic site or in a historic setting that it is compatible but differentiated from the historic building or buildings.
Not RecommendedReplicating the features of the historic building when designing a new building, with the result that it may be confused as historic or original to the site or setting.
From proposed zoning code:
iii. Historic architectural styles (e.g., craftsman, Victorian, bungalow, etc.) are not mandated. However, contemporary architectural treatments proposed for new residences must complement and not detract from the qualities of the historic overlay district and the neighborhood setting of the proposed development. e. Accessory Structures.
i. New accessory structures (e.g., garages, second units, sheds, etc.) that are visible from the public rightof-way must incorporate the distinctive architectural features (e.g., color, materials, roof pitch and style, etc.) of the main structure.
ii. Design features must be applied with less detail on the accessory structure so that it does not compete with the main structure and is clearly subordinate to it.
This requirement for new accessory structures is completely against the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. It is very important that new construction of accessory structures within the district is not relegated to poorly detailed reproductions of original actual historic pieces of architecture. In one section the code is stating that historic architectural styles are not mandated, in the next it is ZWISCHEN STUDIO PO Box 984 St. Helena, CA 94574 p 206.218.5615 f 206.913.3622 Agenda Item #8.1.
mandating that historic architectural styles are mandated and that they need to match color, materials, roof pitch and style of the main structure. It then goes on to dictate that although the structure is to match, the design features must be applied with less detail to not compete with the main structure.
This does not make sense and will relegate all accessory structures as poor quality fake miniature reproductions of the original actual historic architecture. Accessory structures need to be free to be expressed as architecture that clearly departs from the original architecture else they will be inaccurately perceived as historic. Falsely attempting to create period architecture on a historic site is against the standards.
This code section is clearly in direct contrast to Secretary of Interior’s Standards and needs to be eliminated.
17.34.050
Measuring Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio
Areas included in floor area measurement. The floor area is measured as the sum of the gross horizontal floor areas of a building measured from the exterior face of exterior walls, or from the centerline of a wall separating two buildings. Areas included and excluded from floor area are listed below.
1. Included in Floor Area Calculation.
a. All habitable space (as defined in the Building Code) that is below the roof and within the outer surface of the main walls of principal or accessory buildings or the centerlines of party walls separating such buildings or portions thereof.
b. In cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for a standard roof projection.
c. Interior walkways or corridors, interior courtyards, walkways, paseos, or corridors covered by a roof or skylight.
d. All floors of enclosed stairways, stairwells or elevator shafts.
Why is this definition included in the code when there is no district that references it’s inclusion? This version of calculating FAR completely disincentives outdoor sitting areas, exterior covered walkways, etc. and it is very confusing as to what might be considered an inclusion or not. Areas included in FAR should be limited to conditioned space versus unconditioned space excluding attics and basements, and conditioned space. If an area is is covered usable space on a parcel ie covered dining space etc. the covered area should simply be calculated as function of lot coverage. The current definition of what is included or excluded for FAR is simple and does a fine job of clarification.
Regarding calculation of FAR for habitable conditioned space the area should be calculated from inside or outside face of structure. Defining as from outer surface of main walls. Current energy efficient building assembly technology rely on exterior insulation and rain screen assemblies. FAR should be calculated from surface of structure and area beyond should be calculated and attributed to lot coverage.
This all seems simple, roof projections beyond a certain distance from structure equals lot coverage.
Covered seating areas or dining areas, lot coverage etc.
Projects currently being designed under existing zoning code:
It takes many months and sometimes years to plan projects and gain entitlements. What happens with all of the projects that are currently being planned within the City? We do not and cannot know a date of adoption ZWISCHEN STUDIO PO Box 984 St. Helena, CA 94574 p 206.218.5615 f 206.913.3622 Agenda Item #8.1.
of the revised code and cannot reliably design to the existing code do not know what the revised code will state. This puts professionals in jeopardy and leaves no reliable path. There should be a grace period put into place with a metric to be met for qualification. For instance if a project has been discussed with planning staff by X date and an application is submitted within X number of months of meeting then the project falls under current zoning code if desired. It’s not possible to rely on planning commission timetables or staff comments and time to review and revise.
Current zoning code iteration:
The format of using comment tracker rather than a red lined version of the latest iteration is incredibly confusing and there is no way to accurately apply staff comments to the code and interpret implications consistently. This coupled with the fact that there are no hyper links or constant page references for the document as a whole makes scrolling through hundreds of pages for each line reference the only way to view the document. There has not been enough time to adequately review and the format complicates this exponentially.
The methodology of simply responding to each comment individually without analyzing the document holistically leaves implications of adopting the new title an unknown at this point.
The photos attached are a few examples of properties in town which do not have the second story set back at front facade or have general nonconforming aspects to the current update iteration within their district.
Please note this is a very small representation and within the MR the number of properties with carports or garages that are not set back 10’ from the main building frontage is the vast majority.
ZWISCHEN STUDIO PO Box 984 St. Helena, CA 94574 p 206.218.5615 f 206.913.3622 Agenda Item #8.1.
ZWISCHEN STUDIO PO Box 984 St. Helena, CA 94574 p 206.218.5615 f 206.913.3622 Agenda Item #8.1.
ZWISCHEN STUDIO PO Box 984 St. Helena, CA 94574 p 206.218.5615 f 206.913.3622 Agenda Item #8.1.
Public comment: Re: Zoning code updates and Joint Meeng on 5/10/23 – Part 2 5/12/2023
My apologies, I have a li%le more I'd like to say in addion to the public comment I emailed yesterday.
Since I don’t think I can be as eloquent in 4 minutes at the podium, I have a few addional thoughts I wanted to share as I think of the zoning code dra0, and the larger context this fits into.
I am fairly new to this town, moved here in 2015. I know many of you who are serving roles in this community as Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council, Planning Commissioners, and Staff, have been here much longer, and have witnessed more of the evoluon that has happened in this li%le town, as well as in Napa Valley.
I apologize that I have taken a long me to submit my comments in this process. In my busy schedule of being an architect, running a pracce and business, being a mom of a toddler (in covid mes), I have waited a long me to put effort in a%ending meengs, digesng the material, and pu9ng my thoughts together. I had assumed many others would make comments, and it would all work out in the end.
In the one Spotlight town meeng at the Cameo that I was able to a%end recently (again with my toddler), the current Vice Mayor Eric Hall was presenng the state of St Helena, the economic issues, that past decisions, and the situaon we are in now.
My key take-aways of that:
• Wow, we live in such a beauful town, in such a prosperous valley, and the town is one natural disaster from going bankrupt and becoming a ghost town. • Some things have got to change.
• This town lacks diversity, diversity in all facets just to name a few – socioeconomics, types of businesses, age, housing.
As I think of the proposed revisions of the zoning code, I'm not saying there aren’t good edits. I honestly have not read all of it. Again apologies, my free me is very limited, and I don’t really jump to the idea of reading zoning code in the li%le spare me that I have. But this is why we have you! When I have trouble thinking through complex issues such as this zoning code, I try to zoom out and think of the larger picture, and put it into simpler ideas. As we may have learned in grade school, and are maybe re-learning it with our children’s homework now, I think of the science experiment of creang a habitat, with the goal of making it thrive and last as long as you can. I think my project was a fish tank in school, and I had put some goldfishes, plants, water snails, and gravel in there, and then it was set to survive. Others in the class brought in their habitats. Press play, the clock cks, and we waited to see whose project lived the longest. We learned the more biodiverse, the more lifecycle loops that come in full circle, the be%er the habitats did, the longer they survived, and the be%er it thrived.
Our town is on the brink of failing. Empty storefronts, shortage of workers, lack of funds, unaffordable housing, lack of low-income housing, lack of diverse shops and restaurants that are affordable for everyone, and closing schools, are signs of an unbalanced habitat. I mean honestly, the bigger picture of the world right now has a lot of unbalances. Failing banks, not a good sign. I can’t even start.
Agenda Item #8.1.
There is a saying a colleague just reminded me of, "If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water it will instantly leap out. But if you put it in a pot filled with pleasantly tepid water and gradually heat it, the frog will remain in the water unl it boils to death." I think we all recognize the water is ge9ng warmer.
I have another example. Fake grass. Not long ago, fake grass was the new fad. And maybe people sll think it is. Fake grass is a material that probably in producon puts a lot of carbon into the air. In order to install it well, my understanding is that you have to excavate and remove your top soil, install several inches of compacted gravel, and then lay the fake grass in. (I’ve never installed it so I am only conceptualizing what I hear about it) This is great right? We are saving water. I get it. Everyone should do it, right? Imagine all of St Helena was mandated by some policy to install fake grass in order to conserve water. We're doing the right thing, right? What did we just do? We created a heat island. Fake grass does not photosynthesize, it doesn't take in carbon dioxide, sequester it in the ground, and produce oxygen. Fake grass doesn't a%ract pollinators. Say a person who installed fake grass sells their property. The new owner wants to plant nave water wise plants, and now has to excavate this fake grass and gravel to dump it into a landfill. To undo the damage is very hard. We cannot try to solve for one thing, without thinking about the others.
I write this to you, as you all signed up and worked hard to get to the posions that you hold. No one assigned you. You chose to take this posion on. And I applaud you for your energy and efforts, and I appreciate your drive to make this city a be%er place. My hope with my comments is to offer everyone a moment to take a step back to see the zoning code changes in a larger context. To not be afraid to ask quesons, to seek clarificaons, to decide to take more me if needed to review, and to get more informaon and research about the changes, to queson them unl they are ve%ed out fully. Think outside of the box. Do your due diligence. Don't assume someone else is figuring it out, and that you just have to vote like them.
We do need change. This town needs change, in a thoughIul and measured way. The zoning code edits can help, and they can also hurt. Please take enough me, and gather the professionals needed, vet it all out, before you make it into law, do your homework, before you press play.
One person can affect change. Each of you can affect change.
I affected change in St Helena. The speed limit between Madrona/Fulton to Pra%, heading northbound was 35mph. Heading south, coming into town, it is 25mph. Two speed limits on the same stretch of road. I’m sure you all have thought as you drove north, oh yes, I can finally speed up a0er Fulton/Madrona. There are four pedestrian crosswalks a0er the speed limit sign of 35. Two at Crinella, one at Elmhurst, one at Pra%. There is a middle school just west of this stretch of road, and a community of many young families on the east. I watched many mes in fear, as kids walked home from school, young li%le middle-schoolers, crossing that street, with giant trucks and speeding cars, and I was terrified.
I just became a mom 3.5 years ago. Any other child out there, feels like they’re my child. I understand the deep love for a child a mom can have. I thought, I’m going to do something about this.
I wrote emails and made phone calls to the public works dept, city manager, talked to the Mayor at the me. I made a map and diagram, pointed to the sign, the four crosswalks, the school, took a picture of the 35mph sign with the crosswalk just beyond. I followed up, months and months trying to get an understanding of what steps could be done to reduce the speed limit. I had long conversaon with Mayor Ellsworth, and he recommended that I join the commi%ees, come to meengs that he was working on, Agenda Item #8.1.
and that speed limit signs are expensive, and there are a lot of bureaucrac hoops that you have to jump through to get a speed limit sign changed. I accepted all of the challenges.
One day I called the Police department, and asked about the situaon, and someone politely told me that they only enforce the signs, but that Caltrans is the jurisdicon who could change the sign. I picked up the phone and I called Caltrans signs and maintenance. A person said I need to speak with the north bay signage supervisor Mr. Guerrez. I called him, and let him know my concerns, and emailed him with the diagrams I had done. He said he would send it up through engineering. Months passed, and I would gently check in with him. He would respond le9ng me know that he didn’t forget about me, and that engineering was making progress with it. Even more months passed, and it had been over a year since my first inquiry with Public Works about this sign.
I was at work when my husband texted me a photo of a 25mph sign. It took me a moment to realize what it was, and my jaw dropped. Caltrans had a crew out there, installing zebra striping, pedestrian crossing signs, and the 35mph was replaced with a 25mph. I texted Mr. Guerrez the picture of the sign and a big thank you, I told him he made my year. I was floored that I made that happen, li%le ol’ me. I talked to Mr.
Guerrez, expressed so much gratude that he helped me reduce the speed limit. He menoned that the speed limit change actually wasn’t part of the engineering, and that he had made that change because it was obvious that it should not be 35mph. He said to me, “You know, I have kids too.” What I want to bring to everyone’s a%enon is that when you think with your heart, doing the right thing follows. As you sit in that chair, holding that pen, having that mic, you hold the power to affect change, so much change. I hope you’re not looking over your neighbors’ shoulder thinking they’re doing the homework so I don’t have to. Are you convinced you’re ready to put your name on it? Michelle L. Covell
I would like to make an edit the to my previous comment submi%ed.
My Bachelor’s degree is in Architecture, at the school of Environmental Design at UC Berkeley, with High Honors
Agenda Item #8.1.
Public comments Re: Zoning Dra and Joint Meeng held 5/10/2023 My name is Michelle Liu Covell and I am a resident of St Helena since 2015.
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council, Planning Commissioners, Staff, and the public.
There are a few points I would like to address regarding the comments made during the meeng held 5/10/23. This is mainly regarding the FAR vs Building Footprint item towards the end of the meeng.
To reference the recording, this begins about 2 hour 19 minutes where Roger Eastman, of Lisa Wise Consulng, addresses FAR for residenal zones in response to Mr. Covell’s public comment. I have transcribed Mr. Eastman’s comment below.
“The decision was made long me ago, working with staff to eliminate FAR from the residenal zones.
FAR is a blunt instrument for controlling building form for the best of mes and a lot of codes in today’s best pracces are eliminang FAR from residenal zones. So you will sll see [it] in the commercial zones, and a lot of the form-base code work that I do, where form is a principal code that you’re trying to drive, FAR is just too blunt of an instrument, so it’s not included. The comment was made that maybe the 2000 SF was too small and that we should eliminate that and we should go back to FAR. Perhaps the answer is, especially given the situaon where Mr. Covell had at 2200 SF home, can we not just rely on the setbacks for the zone and just leave it at that? It’s just one opon that I have not discussed with Director DeRosa but maybe instead of that building footprint limitaon, which in their case, would require a second story, because you can certainly build up but it is more expensive of course, he can certainly build up rather than out, so it becomes do we just rely on the setbacks to limit the footprint, or do we sck to we don’t want the footprint to grow anymore than it is, therefore require the building up, and he wouldn’t have to lose 200 SF. That’s his nonconforming building. So that’s really the queson for you. For someone like Mr. Covell to build up if he wants to expand his home to allow him to expand within the footprint of the setback.”
His points in summary as I interpret it:
• FAR is not a good approach in residenal zoning
• Perhaps the 2000 SF Max Building Footprint is also not a good approach • Perhaps le:ng the setbacks be the only limitaon is a be;er approach Mayor Dohring menoned he is a visual learner. Let me provide some graphics of these three approaches.
FAR APPROACH:
The current residenal zoning code uses FAR to calculate how much building area can be on a parcular parcel. FAR is Floor Area Rao. In simple terms, it is a percentage. I have copied the MR FAR table below for your visual and provided a graphic example. For example, if you have a 10,000 SF lot, the FAR is .31 (31% of 10,000 sf) and you are allowed 3,100 SF of gross floor area. This approach does not define the building “footprint” but just the max square footage of the building.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Here is a graphic of the FAR approach based on a 45 x 200 lot, a 100 x 200 lot, and a 200 x 200 lot, with the areas highlighted above. Red line is building setbacks, black line is parcel outline.
Agenda Item #8.1.
MAX FOOTPRINT APPROACH:
From the Dra Zoning Code October 2022 the suggested change in the code was to put a Max. Primary Building Footprint based on lot widths, which removes the parcel area out of the equaon, and gives you a Max. building footprint size based on your lot width. If your lot width is greater that 45, your max building footprint is 2000 SF. You could have a lot that is 45 wide by 200 long (9000sf) or a 100 wide by 200 long (20,000 sf), or a 200 wide by 200 (40,000 sf just less than an acre), your Max. building footprint is 2000 sf. See graphic.
The Max. 2000 SF building footprint approach forces you to build up, a second floor, if you would like to expand your exisng home. In exisng older homes, foundaons and walls were not built with this kind of “future proofing” of building up. To go up, these exisng homes could need major foundaon retrofits and rebuilding structural walls to handle the added loads of a second story, which in some cases, you might as well tear down the house. Surgery to exisng homes can be more costly than just starng from scratch, and building anything in this valley is extremely expensive. Not just construcon costs, but all of the design and permi:ng fees that go along with it.
Agenda Item #8.1.
SETBACKS APPROACH:
Mr. Eastman said FAR is a blunt instrument and is not included in today’s best pracces. He suggests instead of a building footprint limitaon, maybe just rely on setbacks to limit the footprint.
Here’s a graphic for that. No FAR, no building footprint limitaon, just the setbacks, and maximum lot coverage.
The red lines show the MR zone setback, 20 front and rear setback, and 10 sideyard, and using a 40% Max. Lot coverage for MR per the dra code:
My point of these graphics and pause on the two minutes of discussion, is to give you a visual sense of how codes – laws - can significantly impact people, proper+es, and communi+es. If you are unable to visualize these significant differences in the words that are wri0en, then please pause and take a moment to try to gain that visual before deciding it should become law.
I’d like to take a moment to discuss social impacts of just this code item. I offer a playout of the op+on of maximum footprint 2000sf.
A middle-class family of two working parents with 2 children, with aging parents, working in covid mes remong from home, has a 3-bedroom 2-bathroom house, 2000 sf of habitable space here in St Helena, with 1 bedroom converted to a home office, 1 bedroom for the children, 1 bedroom for the parents.
There is no space for the grandparents to stay, and the parents would like to have another child. They would like to add 500 sf to their home. With this max 2000 sf footprint, they would need to build up.
With construcon costs of $800/SF, construcon costs come in around $400,000.00. As a rough esmate of professional and permit fees around $200,000 (architect, structural engineer, civil engineer, energy consultants, surveyor, reports etc) and their home is luckily not deemed historic, to add 500 SF, they’re looking at $600,000.00. In this valley, they already are facing extreme costs to live here, to eat here, to support local, and to try to make their $1million 1960s flipper ranch home work. These are the Agenda Item #8.1.
“affordable modest” homes of this town currently. How many people can afford to make this addion? Not many.
So what happens? People move farther away, they take their money to buy a bigger house, and work farther away. Let’s say remote work stops for them and they have to start commung back to the valley for their jobs. Traffic congeson gets worse, polluon gets worse. This change to this code just pushed out a young family trying to make it work here.
More families move away. Schools close. Businesses cannot find employees to fill the jobs we need.
Does this sound familiar? We are already living in ripple effects that have been caused by policy makers in this town. Poor foresight and poor planning. Water, lack of funds, etc. This is happening not just in this town, but all over. We are part of the larger urban fabric.
I ask you, are you qualified to make these types of changes? Do you feel like you have a good enough understanding of the codes to understand the repercussions and ripple effects that these laws have on people? Zoning code is Urban planning; Urban planning affects society in so many ways. IT IS NOT JUST WORDS.
Councilmember Lester Hardy said (in addressing Mr. Eastman’s comments regarding FAR vs Setbacks, approx. 2hrs 24 minutes in the video:)
“I think this is an area that merits some care and thought before we make a final determinaon, what we really want in standards and how they’re going to work. We need to look at what is proposed, thinking that what we will see ulmately is a built environment where some significant number of property owners will build to the limits of whatever envelope is allowed. That’s just how things work in our context. And if we think about that, and we don’t like what that looks like in our imaginaons, then you know that’s a reason to think about doing some things differently. And if we look at it, and given the way which we’ve limited that envelope and the other key elements of the standards that we think we’re going to like that environment as it builds out, then we’re good. But I, my own situaon, is that I haven’t really thought about it enough to be sure I have a clear sense in my own mind how to grapple with the kinds of quesons that Mr. Covell has presented. And as I say, it looks to me like it has different consequences in different se6ngs and I don’t think we should ignore that. So that raises a kind of larger and problemac queson about how we manage our process moving forward. I did have a conversaon with Director DeRosa earlier today about this and I know there is a lot of interest in ge6ng this all done, and I appreciate and tell anyone who talks to me about this, that perfecon can’t be the goal, that doesn’t work, but I think we want to take enough me to be sure on the more challenging quesons that have come up through comments and discussions that we’ve taken enough me to be sure we’re comfortable with the answer…. I think when things get hard, I think that’s when we need to slow down. If the decision is difficult and it’s not easy or obvious, that’s when we need to take a li9le bit more me.” Key takeaways as I interpret Councilmember Hardy:
• Don’t make a change unless you are sure you understand the depth of every word that you are making into law.
• “a lot of interest in ge:ng this all done” – Don’t change something just to get it done, unless you know for sure what you are changing works be;er than the previous code, and are ready to face the repercussions.
Agenda Item #8.1.
I think this is good advice coming from a lawyer.
As Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council, Planning Commissioners, staff, as you partake in this law decision making – do you feel qualified to make a ruling on this? If not, recuse yourself. Please don’t just vote if you’re unsure. Be 100% sure.
Wring zoning codes should be done by people who understand historically, visually, economically, and socially the impacts that will come out of it.
Once you put this zoning code into effect, it applies to everyone. It is unclear whether there will even be any recourse. If anyone has a special case, or an undue hardship, they may have to go through a Variance process if even allowed. If a code turns out not well thought-out, the city will need to try to amend this code. In either case, this is me-consuming and costly, not just the processing fees, but also the professional fees. This will have made it harder for people to build, to live, and to thrive here. This will push out the low income, middle class, and any diversity.
If the goal is to make things easier, please do so. Really understand what you are doing. The words become Law, and that has ripple effects that will reverberate for years to come.
Here is screen cap of the Variance fees for reference, not including what professional fees cost to do the drawings/reports/documents for the submi;al.
My background: I am an architect licensed in California; I have been working in St Helena since 2015 with my husband Charles Covell. Prior to that, I worked in San Francisco for another 10 plus years in single family residenal, master planning, hospitality, higher educaon, and commercial projects. I have a Masters in Architecture from CCAC and a Bachelors in Environmental design and Architecture from UC Berkeley.
I can visualize these words. My queson is, can you? Even with my background, I am not an urban planner, and I do not claim to know the answers. However, I can see within just a few minutes of the meeng yesterday, that visuals are needed, and the team making these proposed law changes need to talk more about what they are wring. And if you are unsure of something, don’t write it into law. (I am the lady with the very well-behaved toddler at the joint meeng yesterday) Thank you for your me. RespecSully, Michelle Liu Covell Agenda Item #8.1.
May 10, 2023
City of St. Helena City Council
& Planning Commission
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Dear Council Members & Commissioners,
Blue Zones Project Upper Napa Valley would like to express support for the City of St.
Helena’s comprehensive zoning code update. This update presents the city with an opportunity create a more livable community for all residents.
Blue Zones Project supports changes and enhancements to the community’s built environment, which can be accomplished by revising zoning codes to create the type of community that residents envision. Adopting best practices in the city’s zoning codes can foster a more walkable and bikeable city, support affordable housing, and create a city where innovative businesses thrive.
In closing, we encourage the city adopt proven best practices on the built environment, prioritizing modes of active transportation and livable community development to align with the long-term needs and goals of the entire community.
In health,
Joaquin E. Razo Kelly Bond
Executive Director Public Policy Advocate
1422 Main Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #8.1.