City of St. Helena
Special Joint City Council and Planning
Commission Meeting
Wednesday, May 10, 2023 @ 5:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor,
465 Main Street, St. Helena
PLEASE NOTE: Any person who wishes to speak regarding an item on the agenda or make a comment under the "Oral Communication" portion of the agenda may do so, but please observe the time limit of four minutes.
The Special Joint meeting will be live-streamed on Comcast Channel 28 and on the City’s website.
Public comment for meetings will be accepted via email to [email protected].
All public comments must be received three hours prior to the meeting. All other public comments received after the deadline will be attached to the item the next business day or soon thereafter. Public comments will not be read out loud but will be publicly available and attached to the on-line agenda.
Simultaneous Spanish interpretation services during meetings can be scheduled upon request.
To ensure interpreters are available, requests must be made at least 72 hours in advance by calling the Office of the City Clerk at (707) 968-2640 or emailing [email protected]. The schedule of upcoming meetings and published meeting agendas can be found on the City of St. Helena website at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/.
Servicios de interpretación en español durante la reunión pueden ser solicitados por el público.
Para asegurar que los intérpretes estén disponibles, los servicios tienen que ser solicitados al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión llamando a la oficina de la Secretaria de la Ciudad al (707) 968-2640 o por correo electrónico a [email protected] .
El horario de las reuniones publicadas y próximas puede ser localizado en el sitio de web de la Ciudad en https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/ .
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
4. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall:, City Council Members: Anna Chouteau, Lester Hardy, Billy Summers
Chair: John Ponte, Vice Chair: Autumn Anderson, Commissioners: Rosaura Segura, Marika Rothfeld and Chris Warner
5. PUBLIC FORUM:
Under California law, public comments at special meetings are limited to subjects on the agenda only. Therefore public comment will take place during consideration of the item. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes.
6. REPORTS BY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, AND AB 1234 REPORTS:
Reports by staff and/or Councilmembers on items of general interest. Brief questions for clarification may be posed and answered, and Councilmembers may request that items be placed on a future agenda. Except under certain circumstances, the Brown Act prohibits any other discussion or action by the City Council.
7. STAFF BRIEFING
None
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.1. Joint Special Meeting of Planning Commission and City Council to conduct Public Meeting #4 for Zoning Code Update
CEQA Determination: CEQA will be completed before formal adoption.
Prepared By: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director Recommendation:
Receive report and provide feedback to staff on revisions suggested and proposed schedule .
Staff Report - Pdf
Presentation 05-10-2023
Roy Piper Public Comment
City Response to Roy Piper Email January 31, 2023
FAQ Zoning Code Topics
Public Comment.Napa Valley Vinters
Public Comment.Joe McGrath
Public Comment.Mark Smithers
Public Comment.Kelly Wheaton
Public comment.Mariam Hansen
Public comment.Napa County Landmarks
Public Comment.Our Town St. Helena Response to Joe McGrath Public Comment.Tamara Traeder
Public comment.Terrence M McGrath
Public comment.Walker Warner Architects
Public comment.Charles and Michelle Covell
Public comment.Chris Wade
Public comment.David Walker
Public Comment.Erik Lundquist
Public comment.Joshua Parke
Public comment.Michelle Covell 2
Public comment.Michelle Covell
Public comment.Blue Zones Project
5 - 207
9. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for 23,2023, at 6:00 p.m.
This agenda was posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, and at Vintage Hall, 465 Main Street, St. Helena, California on May 2, 2023.
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s Office (707) 967-2792. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting
CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES
The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City of St. Helena is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision, including without limitation Government Code section 65009 applicable to many land use and zoning decisions, Government Code section 66499.37 applicable to the Subdivision Map Act, and Public Resources Code section 21167 applicable to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred.
Government Code section 65009 and 66499.37, and Public Resources Code section 21167, impose shorter limitations periods and requirements, including timely service in addition to filing.
If a person wishes to challenge the above actions in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of St.
Helena, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA
Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 1480 Main Street, St. Helena, California, during normal business hours. In addition, such writings or documents will be made available on the City’s web site at https://sthelena.civicweb.net and will be available for public review at the respective meeting.
Report to the City Council
Special Joint City Council and Planning
Commission Meeting - 10 May 2023
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Subject: Joint Special Meeting of Planning Commission and City Council to conduct Public Meeting #4 for Zoning Code Update CEQA
Determination:
CEQA will be completed before formal adoption.
Prepared By: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director Reviewed By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Approved By: Anil Comelo, City Manager
BACKGROUND
On June 2019, the City of St. Helena adopted a new General Plan. The comprehensive update to the 1993 General Plan included a number of implementation actions which indicated a new zoning ordinance would be needed to bring the zoning into compliance with the new General Plan. The City hired the consulting firm of Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) in December 2019 to lead the code update effort.
On May 5, 2020, the City held a joint City Council and Planning Commission Special meeting to discuss a summary of the stakeholder input received in February and March of 2020. Key issues that were discussed include:
• Discretionary Review Process: there is a lack of predictability for applicants; Design Review findings need to be less subjective.
• Housing: there is a need for more creative housing types, density and strategic infill.
• Neighborhood Character: new residential rebuilds are out of context with neighborhood scale and mass; floor area ratio (FAR) should be reduced; design review findings are unclear.
• Downtown: the list of permitted uses in the downtown should be expanded to create economic stimulus.
Agenda Item #8.1.
• Format: the current use-based format of the code should be maintained instead of switching to a form based code.
Some key objectives of this work effort by the City include a more user-friendly code, clear standards attracting high quality development, addressing current legislation and ensuring that new development is compatible with neighborhood character. Following the May 5, 2020 meeting, the consultant compiled a Recommendations Memo which was presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting on August 24, 2020. A meeting with a group of Downtown Stakeholders occurred on June 23, 2021 to solicit feedback on constraints with the current code and additional uses that should be added to the code, particularly in the CB, Central Business District. As a result of this input, the new code now includes a broader array of permissible uses including creative maker spaces, brewpubs and public markets (see Table 17.17.020).
The City Council created a three-member Zoning Code Subcommittee (Council members Hardy and Hall and Chair Ponte) to work with staff and the consultant in the review of the draft code and provide feedback prior to release to the public.
The Subcommittee conducted 12 meetings starting on March 10, 2021 and concluding on August 30, 2022.
What Does the Updated Zoning Code Accomplish?
o Economic development tool
▪ Promotes highest and best use on Main Street
▪ Design standards create certainty for builders
▪ Expanded list of active uses including public market, brewpubs, amphitheater, maker uses
▪ Allows formula retail by right (up to 4) in the Service Commercial (SC) District and adds specific use permit findings to create more certainty for retailers in the CB and MU districts
▪ Eliminates parking in-lieu fee burden downtown (Parking Exemption Overlay) and waives all on-site parking requirements
o Streamlines permit process by introducing staff level review processes (Minor Use Permit and Minor Design Review) and moving many uses previously a Use Permit to a Permitted Use (staff approval) o Eliminates arbitrary Major Design Review findings
o Adds illustrated parking design standards (previously not part of the zoning code)
o Facilitates Multi-family development
▪ Adds Objective Design Standards
▪ Ministerial Review
▪ Reduces parking requirements so more land can be for housing o Adds Lighting and Illumination Standards
o State law compliant
▪ Implements ministerial review consistent with SB 330
Agenda Item #8.1.
▪ Updated Affordable Housing chapter to be compliant with state density bonus law
▪ Amended Sign Code to be content neutral
o Climate Action
▪ Includes standards for bicycle parking, EV chargers
▪ Updated Xeriscape standards
▪ Adds solar energy standards
o Ease of use
▪ Compare development standards across different zones on one page
▪ Compare uses across different zones on one page
▪ Adds illustrated development standards diagrams to support code standard
▪ Enhanced graphics in sign code
▪ Illustrated rules of measurement
How Does the Updated Zoning Code Align with Housing Needs, Reduce Cost, Add Diversity of Uses and Increase Density?
• Expanded small lot standards with illustrated diagrams on acceptable lot layouts • Added Single Room Occupancy Uses (permitted by right in MU district) • Added Live/Work land use
• Created new zoning district "Mixed Use" which allows for residential development up to 20 units/acre in areas previously not designated for this increased density • Eliminated covered parking requirement
• Updated Planned Development Overlay provides clarification of what development standards should be included
Public Outreach on Public Review Draft Zoning Code
The Public Review Draft of the new zoning code was released on October 18, 2022.The first of three proposed public meetings to receive comments was held on October 26th as a special joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting (Meeting #1). The focused discussion topics of that meeting were sections of the code pertaining to review authority, new permit processes and residential development and design standards. Comments were received from the City Council, Planning Commission and members of the public and are noted in the attached comment tracking table.
On December 7, 2022, a third public meeting was held as a special joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting (Meeting #3) and the key topics included parking standard changes, signage regulations, affordable housing regulations, parking exemption overlay, historic preservation overlay, planned development overlay, and proposed changes to the map, including the deletion of the LR-1A district. After receiving a lot of public testimony not in favor of removing the LR-1A zoning, direction was given to staff to revise the zoning map and standards to include LRAgenda Item #8.1.
1A. At the end of the meeting, the public comment period was extended to December 31, 2022 and all comments received during that time period have been included in the attached comment tracker. (Attachments 1-4). In all, over 380 comments have been responded to by staff and the consultant. Areas where changes are proposed to the draft code based on public comment are shaded in yellow.
Due to the number of comments the City received questioning the need for objective standards, in response, staff created an educational website devoted to objective standards to inform the public in advance of the next public meeting. https://www.cityofsthelena.org/planning/page/objective-standards-information-andresources The Discussion section of this staff report addresses the key items of community concern and public comment and includes recommendations for the revised public review draft.
DISCUSSION
1. Non-conforming code comments
As part of the public review process, the City received numerous comments expressing concerns with the added provision to Part II, Chapter 17.09.050 (A) which states:
“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.”
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, there currently are a fair amount of existing lots and structures in the City that are nonconforming. If the City did codify this added provision to the code, when an expansion was proposed, it would prevent many homeowners from being able to add code compliant additions to their existing homes. Staff finds 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.
It is also important to note from a policy perspective, the appeal of the 1420 Allyn case (2021) was approved by the City Council, which confirms a policy that accepted legal non-conformity of existing structures may remain when the project proposes an expansion as long as it does not increase the degree of nonconformity.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Additionally, it is important to clarify where some of the public comments received appeared to misunderstand the different sections of the non-conforming ordinance. There are actually two different sections pertaining to alteration.
Section A, pertains to expansions and enlargement. Section B, pertains to remodel, rehabilitation and alteration. Many comments raised a concern if you were making an alteration such as adding a window, or adding a shade overhang to a building that has any non-conformity, you would have to bring the entire property to conformity which is inaccurate. Please refer to Chapter 17.09.050 (B) below:
A. Remodel, Rehabilitation, and Alteration. 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.
As the draft code is currently written, exterior changes to a non-conforming building that are not new expansions and enlargements may have the nonconforming component remain.
2. Changes to Certificate of Extent of Legal Non-Conformity (CLN) ordinance One of the new code sections in the Non-Conforming ordinance is Section
17.09.030(F), which outlines the process of documenting a legal non-conforming use. The City received comments about making that review process subject to a staff level review and approval instead of requiring Planning Commission be the reviewing body. After further consideration by staff, it is recommended that this change be made, but also allow the Community Development Director to refer a decision on a CLN application to the Planning Commission.
3. New Tanks in Winery District
The City received public comment regarding the requirement for new tanks in the Winery District to have a Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends leaving this requirement in the code, however a endnote to Table 17.19.020 is proposed which would state “if the new tanks increase wine production volume beyond what is established in the existing use permit or Certificate of Extent of Legal Non-Conformity, a new use permit is required. If there is no increase in wine production as a result of the proposed new tanks, no CUP is required. Outdoor tanks are subject to Design Review.
4. Objective Design Standards
Purpose
Agenda Item #8.1.
State law defines objective standards as those that “involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and public official prior to submittal.” The purpose of the objective design standards found in Chapter 17.16.040 of the public review draft code is to articulate project design requirements for all residential and mixed-use developments. These Standards will be utilized to detail the review process by clearly stating the City of St. Helena’s objectives for high quality, residential projects that are aesthetically pleasing while still embracing the eclectic community character. The City Attorney prepared an informational page regarding objective standards which is also on the objective standards website. The objective standards legal basis can be found as Attachment 5A.
For more information regarding SB 330 "Housing Crisis Act of 2019" (see link here https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB330/id/2056747) .
a. Listening sessions and additional written comments
Prior to the December 7, 2022 public meeting, LWC and Director DeRosa met with members of the design community to hear their feedback and comments on suggested code changes, including areas of the objective standards that were interpreted as limiting creativity.
Post the December 7, 2022 meeting, the City received additional comments from Greg Desmond, Dan Hale and Joe McGrath, all of which are captured in the separate comment trackers attached to this staff report. In 2023, a significant amount of time was spent by staff and consultant reviewing all comments, but in particular, the objective design standards in part 3. This section summarizes and addresses some of the key revisions to this part of code for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
b. Review of current building stock, both old and new
In January 2023, staff conducted field visits to residential neighborhoods throughout the City to look at historic development as well an new infill development. This field assessment helped inform additional proposed refinements to the objective design standards in Part III discussed below. c. Proposed revisions to objective design standards
Staff has prepared a redline of Part III, 17.16.040 (Attachment 5B) for review and consideration by the public, Planning Commission and City Council. Please refer to this attachment for full details regarding the Agenda Item #8.1.
proposed refinements. A brief summary of some of the key changes to Section A, which applies to all residential development types is noted below:
• Second Story Stepbacks: removed requirement for stepback on side and rear. Created more flexibility for front elevation by allowing a front porch in lieu of the required 10 foot front stepback. Please also refer to Attachment 6, which illustrates field photos of existing St. Helena homes that utilize this common design feature.
• Building Transparency/Wall Planes: The Building Transparency section has been deleted and revised to “Wall Planes”. Some of the building transparency standards carry over to the wall planes section, such as the requirement to have window or door openings on a continuous wall plane of 10 feet or more to prevent blank walls. The new proposed standards allow for bay windows, balconies, verandas, or a change in color or material in lieu of an opening. This implies you could have a blank wall with two different colors and materials but no window. Staff requests the Planning Commission and City Council confirm if that alternate method of compliance should be deleted in order to prevent blank residential facades without relief of openings.
• Roofline and Roof Design/Plate Height: Standards for this have been deleted from the code as staff finds that roof design has not been problematic in St. Helena and the standards will be cumbersome for staff to review.
• Exterior Building Materials and Colors: In the prior version of this section, the code listed materials of plywood and corrugated metal as prohibited. In the redline revision, corrugated metal may be used as a roof material in all zones with the exception of HP Overlay properties, and is an allowed siding material in the A-20, MR and HR Districts. Staff requests the Planning Commission and City Council confirm that corrugated metal should be an allowed siding material in MR as this zone tends to have the highest concentration of neighborhoods of historic character where this is not a siding material present on older buildings.
Regarding the reference to regulating “bright colors”, this has been deleted as well as the reference to requiring a “consistent palette of materials and colors”. It now states that a palette of materials and colors on a building must be applied to all sides of the building.
5. 855 Pratt and Historic Preservation Overlay
Agenda Item #8.1.
Post the December 7, 2022 joint public meeting the City received four letters (Attachments 7,8,9 and 10) from firms representing the property owner of 855 Pratt, a house listed both in the General Plan Appendix A, Historic Resource List, and in the proposed Historic Preservation Overlay. The essence of all four letters objected to the listing and made claims that the City had not created processes for the demolition and delisting of a historic structure in the new ordinance. Staff has compiled a Master Response to all four letters (Attachment 11) to clarify 1) why the structure even though surveyed in 2006 still retains architectural integrity and should remain on the HP Overlay; and 2) the proposed zoning code does provide a clear process for considering a historic demolition permit (17.05.040) and for removing a historic resource from designation (17.10.030).
6. A-20 Standards Proposed Changes
In reviewing the public comments received, staff noted requests that the following amendments be made to the A-20 development standards table (please also see Attachment 12):
• Lots less than 2 acres:
o 35% maximum second story floor area (rather than zero) o 25% maximum lot coverage (includes accessory structures) rather than 35%
Additionally, after closer review, staff is recommending an amendment to endnote 3 on Table 17.19.030A regarding what is included in both the lot coverage standard and the maximum paved/hardscaped area standard. The revised wording for endnote 3 for lots greater than 2 acres is proposed as follows with additions in underline:
End Note (3) is rewritten as: No more than 0.5 one half 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 two-thirds the length of the parcel), parking areas, patios, pools, lawn areas, or other nonagricultural uses are included in the 0.5 half acre maximum per parcel.
The above change from “actual agriculture" to “active agricultural” use resulted in LWC developing an additional definition to be added to the Definitions Section of the draft code. The proposed definition reads as follows:
Active Agricultural Use: Includes animal husbandry, crop, tree farming and viticulture.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Please view Attachment 12 for an additional proposed endnote for A-20 lots under 2 acres in the A-20 development standards.
Summary of Updates based on previous Planning Commission/City Council direction
• Requiring a CUP for new tanks in Winery District: Recommendation-no change but add endnote as discussed in item 3 in this report. • Adding Non-conforming code change for proposed expansions :
Recommendation-see above discussion item 1 in this report • Refining Small Winery ordinance-remove requirement to have owner live onsite and allow grape source to be from within St. Helena:
Recommendation-make change
Proposed Updates based on public comments noted in the comment trackers Unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission and City Council at the May 10th meeting, staff will make the proposed changes to the public review draft as noted in the comment trackers which are shaded in yellow in the response box.
Next Steps
Staff finds that there has been very good public comment and feedback from both the City Council and Planning Commission during the past three public meetings. Most of the items from meetings 1, 2 and 3 have been addressed as noted in the attached Comment Trackers and those that are beyond the scope of this code update can be prioritized by the City Council at an adoption hearing or directed to be included in the Downtown Specific Plan work effort which the City desires to begin following the code adoption. City staff and consultant have invested significant time in reviewing each and every comment and noting recommendations on how best to address them. It is also important to keep in mind that all significant projects, such as a comprehensive code update, require some adjustments post-adoption to more closely conform to the intent of the General Plan as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council in light of public comments and their own deliberations. Please also refer to the FAQ (Attachment 13) that was prepared in response to some of the key public discussion items during the 2022 public meetings.
Staff recommends the following next steps:
In light of the recent budget amendment to the LWC contract to conduct this one additional public meeting in May and make additional refinements based on public comments in 2022, the recommended next steps include:
1) Make the recommended changes to the public review draft noted in the Comment Tracker (unless otherwise directed at the 5/10 meeting) Agenda Item #8.1.
2) Prepare the CEQA document; and
3) Proceed with scheduling adoption hearings for Planning Commission and City Council
FISCAL IMPACT
This is a public meeting discussion, therefore there will be no direct fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive report and provide feedback to staff on revisions suggested and proposed schedule .
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1-All comments-Comment Tracker All_042823
Attachment 2-Comment Tracker McGrath_042823
Attachment 3-Comment Tracker_DHale_042823
Attachment 4-Comment Tracker Desmond_042823
Attachment 5A-Objective Standards legal basis -City of St. Helena Attachment 5B Redline to Objective Design Standards_17.16.040_PHD Attachment 6-Examples of Two Story St. Helena Residences Consistent with revised Design Standards
Attachment 7-855 Pratt Letter Clark Sather 12-29-2022
Attachment 8-855 Pratt comment letter SSL Law 12-30-2022 Attachment 9-855 Pratt comment Alexander Viñedo LLC - 12-30-2022 Attachment 10-855 Pratt Avenue Letter_Lone_Cypress_Consulting_12-29-2022 Attachment 11-City Master responses 855 Pratt comment letters Attachment 12 Proposed A-20 revisions
Agenda Item #8.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
A B CD E
City of St. Helena ‐ Zoning Code Update
Tracking Public Comments ‐ City Council/Planning Commission Work Sessions Updated: April 28, 2023 Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
Daniel Hale
(email)
Joe McGrath
(email)
Greg Desmond
(email)
Work Session #1, October 26, 2022
Dohring/
Warner
(CC/PC)
Add a requirement for hearing notice for Director decisions so adjacent or surrounding properties are aware of a new
application.
Chapter 17.05
Director
Decisions
There are limited staff resources to notify
surrounding properties of non‐discretionary
applications. No change is recommended.
Dohring (CC) “Accessory structures" are only defined as ADU’s? Otherwise garages attached or unattached are included in the allowed “footprint”? Removed is 200 sf exemption for garages?
Section
17.22.020
LWC will repeat the Section 17.22.030 definition
of Accessory Structure in Chapter 17.32.
Dohring (CC) Review text "denial language without leave to amend"; text missing?
Section
17.04.160,
P. 14
LWC to review and edit.
Dohring (CC) Global edit: change "he/she" to "they". Global edit LWC to review and edit.
Dohring (CC) Clarify in the Code that CCRs are not enforced by the City. ‐‐ Recommend no action.
Kelly Wheaton Concern that water neutrality is not included in the ZC. ‐‐ Recommend no action. Chapter 13.12 of SHMC is the Water Efficiency Ordinance and new
development must comply with this ordinance
even though it is not in the zoning ordinance.
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/StHelena/#
!/StHelena13/StHelena1312.html#13.12
Gary Rose
(citizen)
Include water conservation in the ZC. ‐‐ Recommend no action. See previous response.
Gary Rose
(citizen)
Add more precise cross‐references to Codes referred to in the ZC, e.g., subdivision ordinance and hyperlinks.
Global edit Online code publisher to provide all requested hyperlinks.
Mariana ?
(citizen)
Include live links. ‐‐ Online code publisher to provide all requested hyperlinks.
Greg ?
(planning
consultant)
Important to reduce entitlement costs to keep housing affordable.
Will submit additional written comments.
‐‐ Comment noted. The proposed code allows for
more types of uses and alterations to be reviewed
ministerially which reduces costs. Application
costs are based on the Master Fee Schedule,
adopted by City Council and not germane to the
Zoning Code update.
Pam Smithers
(email)
Regarding a cathedral type roof which is not technically a second story, please confirm how this relates to the plate height standards in the code?
Section
17.34.030
Paragraph C states that any height above 25 ft
clear is considered 2 stories. Mostly in MR.
Therefore, if the cathedral ceiling/2‐story volume
is over 25 feet it would be considered a second
story and does not meet the requirement for a 10
foot stepback on the front. Essentially then,
based on the standard in 17.16.040.A.2 which
requires a second story stepback, this would not
be allowed. No edit recommended.
Wheaton ‐
email
In A‐20, code provides max. 35% lot coverage, which includes accessory structures. Why is the same as lot coverage in LR? For lots >2 acres, lot coverage is 0.5 acre of non‐ag use, i.e. 25% of 2 acres and 10% of 20 acres. Preferred. Reconsider because the 35% standard allows too much building area.
Table 17.19.030 Recommend to amend Table 17.19.030 max lot coverage of 25% for A‐20 lots less than 2 acres.
Wheaton ‐
email
Also A‐20: Max. ground level floor area excludes accessory structures. No limitation on underground square footage, no limitation on second story. Why are there no second story limitations? Recommend align stds. For A‐20 for parcels < 2 acres with current standards for parcels > 2 acres.
Table 17.19.030 Recommend add 35% max for second story floor area for lots less than 2 acre A‐20 lots.
Colored cells indicate recommended changes to the Public Hearing Draft All of Daniel Hale's comments regarding specific Code sections that were submitted in various emails are in a separate tracker sheet.
All of Joe McGrath's comments regarding specific Code sections that were submitted in various emails are in a separate tracker sheet.
All of Greg Desmond's comments regarding specific Code sections that were submitted via email are in a separate tracker sheet.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
23 24
25 26
27 Wheaton ‐
email
Need to state maximum allowable gfa for all zoning areas ‐ including basements.
Table 17.19.030 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.
Work Session #2, November 16, 2022
Debra
Dommen
(email)
Definition of “wine production”. The change to include “all bottled wine received on the premises during the same year” can result in double counting. Wineries produce wine through fermentation and blending with bulk wine, as reflected in the beginning of the definition. However, some wineries bottle their wine offsite and may be stored elsewhere for a period of time. If wine from a different vintage is brought back to the winery for sale or storage it very likely will be a different vintage that was accounted for in a different year and has nothing to do with production. This should be removed. I suggest the adoption of the County’s definition of production as it has been in use since 2005 and has worked well. I have attached it for your convenience.
Chapter 17.32,
P. 22
Update the existing definition with additional text
from the Napa County definition as follows (new
text in underline) and strikeout text
Wine production. 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
ALSO: Add as a footnote
to Table 17.19.020:
If the new tanks increase
wine production volume
beyond what is
established in an existing
CUP or Certificate of
Legal Non‐Conforming
Use, 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.
Debra
Dommen
(email)
“Requiring the construction of new tanks to have a conditional use permit approval”. There are many reasons that may require a winery to add additional tanks that has no relation to increasing production. One example would be the need to have additional or larger tanks to do blends before bottling. Requiring a conditional use permit to address minor changes in the way you make wine is extreme. Other jurisdictions view tanks more as equipment with use permits being required only upon a change in the intensity of permitted winery production. In fact, the County of Napa recently adopted a ministerial Administrative Use Permit process that takes less time, money and studies to address processes such as this that do not impact intensity of use.
Table 17.19.020 Staff recommends keeping the subcommittee recommendation to require a conditional use
permit for new tanks. Add as a footnote to Table
17.19.020 "If the new tanks increase wine
production volume beyond what is established in
the existing use permit or Certificate of Legal Non‐
Conforming, a new use permit is required. If there
is no increase in wine production as a result of
the proposed new tanks, no CUP is required."
Design review is only required if the tanks are
located outdoors. (Email from City staff Feb. 4,
2023)
Debra
Dommen
(email)
Temporary advertising sign, including banners are currently excluded from any permitting process as long as they adhere to the time and frequency limitations. In the new code, these signs will now require a permit from the city, with the same time and frequency limitations as the current code. Beringer has utilized these types of signs for special events and sales for years and should not be subject to a new permitting process.
Section
17.27.080
The sign regulations were comprehensively
updated to be content‐neutral based on the US
Supreme Court's 2015 Reed v Town of Gilbert
decision. This resulted in substantial changes to
the temporary signs provisions. A permit is only
required for banner signs in all non‐residential
zones for all uses. Time frame requirements for
banners are unchanged. No edits recommended.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
28 29
30 31
32 Patrick Rue
(email)
The proposed zoning code is great, thank you for the thoughtful approach in planning for our city’s future. I’d like to suggest a change to the definition of “Wine shop” from:
"Wine shop. 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.
Incidental wine tastings may occur in wine shops. Wine shops are not owned by wineries and must possess a Type 20, 21, or 42 license from Alcoholic Beverage Control." ‐ TO
Proposed: "Wine shop. 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. Beers 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." I hesitate to change the code to fit my own needs, but I assume that’s partially what the code is for. I own a bottle shop in St.
Helena that fits well into the definition of “Wine shop”, except that I sell beer, and I hold two Type 02 licenses. Wine and beer manufacturers are permitted under California law to hold a Type 20 off‐sale license.
Chapter 17.32,
P. 28
Agreed ‐ make this change.
Wine shop. 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.
Connie Min
(email)
I am writing as the family who owns the vacant lot at 905 Main Street, St Helena. It is the vacant 12,000 sq foot lot at the corner of Main and Charter. It is adjacent to the former Yao wine tasting room, Gott's (Taylor's Refresher), across from Charter Oak and Farmstead restaurants.
I've been following the new zoning code updates with a lot of excitement and anticipation of developing our lot. I'm now writing to express my concern and objection about the non‐residential commercial parking ratio in the draft and explain why I hope the city takes up this matter:
‐‐ Staff and LWC have studied the retail/commercial
parking requirements of other destination cities
such as Healdsburg and Sonoma and find that the
standard of 1 parking space per 300 SF of building
area is typical parking standard. Ms. Min has been
advised by the Community Development Director
to submit a concept site plan for her site that
shows her building and some on‐site parking.
Options for her to realize development include:
Connie Min
(email)
The parking ratio for retail remains at 1 parking space for 300 square feet of floor area for all lots however small or large. This ratio is truly a relic of outdated department store style development standards that created a sea of asphalt around a mall. It's many decades old and the subject of hundreds of studies that show that onerous off‐street parking requirements have been a truly poor land use policy that makes development too costly in California, especially for smaller lots like ours.
California has clearly woken up to this fact just recently ‐ the governor passed bills that ban any parking minimums in high transit areas as well as infill lots in the state. There's a legislative push in Sacramento as well as local governments up and down the state to reform, if not ban, decades old parking ratios especially for lots that are not large.
Chapter 17.26 Ms. Min will be exploring an off‐site parking agreement with the neighboring parcel off
Charter Oak.
Connie Min
(email)
I'm asking the city to create development standards in the new zoning code that recognize that the old parking ratio is not suitable for small lots such as ours. Our property is also outside the parking overly exemption district which means that the 1 parking space:300 sq feet ratio makes any development proposal too costly or unviable.
Chapter 17.26 Ms. Min will be bringing her development
proposal to the Planning Commission in a work
session to get feedback on support for a parking
variance before formally processing her
application.
Connie Min
(email)
continued
The city is seeking high quality formula retail to fill vacancies and add to sales tax revenues. I'm working very hard to place the kind of tenant on our lot that would revitalize St Helena as a retail destination over downtown Napa, Yountville, etc. The current parking ratio will make that impossible.
‐‐ As above ‐ Ms. Min will be bringing her
development proposal to the Planning
Commission in a work session to get feedback on
support for a parking variance before formally
processing her application.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
33 34
35 Susan Kenward
(email and
public
comments)
Detailed comments opposing the PRD revisions for Short Term Rental Permits, particularly regarding the change from a PC hearing to the Director's review of a written complaint.
Section
17.05.100.H.4
See the City Attorney's edits to this section as
presented to PC/CC on 11/16/22, pasted below
(bold and strikeout) that will be incorporated into
the revised code:
4. If the permit holder has a current business
license, has rented their property on a short‐term
basis for an average of 60 days per year (as
applicable), has been properly reporting and
paying TOT, and has fewer than three valid
complaints or confirmed Code violations of the
Code or of state or federal law related to Short‐
Term Rental Permits filed over the prior two
years, the Community Development Director may
administratively approve the renewal, which shall
be valid for an additional two years. The
Community Development Director has the
discretion to determine whether a complaint is
valid. If any all of these provisions is are not met,
the renewal shall be referred to the Planning
Commission for action at a public hearing. The
Community Development Director also has
discretion to refer the renewal application to the
Planning Commission for a decision pursuant to
the process and standards set forth in Section D.
Connie Min
(email)
I'm reaching out to the city and LWC consultants after the Nov 16 joint meeting on the non‐residential zoning code update. This is a follow up to topic of commercial parking in the new draft.
I'm writing as part of the family that owns 905 Main Street ‐ the vacant lot next to Vine Star and Gott's/Taylor's Refresher. Our lot is just under 12,000 sq ft and falls into the new mixed use district.
We've followed for 2 years the community gathering process, the merchant input comments, etc. and the stated policy framework and goals by LWC in coming up with the draft. We've been waiting for the numbers.
The city's new policy of allowing high quality formula retail means that we can cast a much wider net for a brand name retailer. It means we can seek commercial tenants that have brands,
recognition and financing to invest in St Helena. In light of this new policy, we are seeking destination retail and are exploring how to build to max FAR and floor area on our lot. ‐ a multi story retail of at least 12,000‐15,000 square feet plus any allowable mezzanine, rooftop space, etc. We know that if Yountville can lure Restoration Hardware and First Street Napa can pull in Lululemon, we can market St Helena to truly high end retailers.
Section
17.22.120
Formula
Businesses
Please see above response to Ms. Min's
comments. Recommendation: This important
topic of expanding the Parking Exemption Overlay
District and reconsidering formula businesses and
restaurants should be addressed comprehensively
as part the City's proposed Downtown Master
Plan and parking study work post code adoption
in 2023.
Connie Min
(email)
continued
The commercial parking ratio of 1 parking space: 300 square feet in the new zoning draft makes development not viable for smaller size lots like ours. As I described in a previous email, this ratio is decades old for department stores located in the middle of a sea of asphalt. It's so outdated that the CA state legislature has gone out of their way to throw it out entirely for infill development and some mixed use zoning (see 2022 legislation AB 2097 for example). The urban planners in LWC will immediately know what I mean by this. Outdated parking minimums have now been outright banned in small cities such as Culver City, Berkeley, etc. ‐‐ See previous response to Ms. Min's comment.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 Steve Goldfarb
(letter via
email and
public
comments)
Details in letter on file; Two primary issues ‐ eliminate the requirement for the property owner having to live on the site of a small winery in A‐20 zone. (Comment continued below.)
Section
17.22.230
Recommendation to eliminate the requirement
for the property owner to live on the site of the
small winery. Staff supports making this change.
Modify the Code to allow the fruit source to be
from within the City limits.
Steve Goldfarb
(letter via
email and
public
comments)
Eliminate the proposed fruit source language; modify to allow any fruit from within St. Helena or the Napa Valley.
Section
17.22.230
Modify the Code to allow the fruit source to be
from within the City limits.
Jeff Feeney
(public
comments)
I ask the planning dept to address parking for our lot before any adoption hearings.
‐‐ The City prepared a report on the number of
CUPs issued which was attached to the December
7, 2022 staff report.
Jeff Feeney
(public
comments)
I've reached out to the planning dept. before and been advised that the code allows variances. I would like to strongly emphasize that we can't market to destination retailers or submit any applications based on promises of variances ‐ variances require specific findings and expose us to litigation and unreliability. ‐‐ Comment noted
Alex Mitchell
(public
comments)
Industrial uses ‐ he owns a business and wants to expand; Code should be permissive to industrial uses. He will have more specific comments next meeting.
Chapter 17.18
Business and
Industrial
Districts
None at this time ‐ waiting on more specific
comments/direction.
Candice ?
(public
comments)
Concern with the nonconforming industrial bulk materials use on the west side of St. Helena.
Chapter 17.18
Business and
Industrial
Districts
Important issue ‐ but not specific to the updated
Zoning Code.
L. Hardy Question about the effect of front setbacks on Oak relative to the property line.
Table 17.17.030 The Code proposes a maximum front setback on Oak Street of up to 8 feet. The front setback is
measured from the property line, which here is
the edge of the sidewalk. Staff has determined
that there currently is no front setback standard
for Adams Avenue.
Recommendation: Add the same front setback
standard as Oak Street (8 feet) to Adams Street to
the Code.
L. Hardy Noted that the proposed City definition of wine production was essentially the same as the County; unclear that the proposed definition will create double counting.
Section
17.22.230
See previous comment.
L. Hardy Winery source issue ‐ recommend within City of St. Helena. Section
17.22.230
Recommendation ‐ change fruit source to City of
St. Helena
L. Hardy STRs ‐ not inclined to add more language to define a confirmed violation.
Section
17.05.100
Comment noted. No change recommended.
L. Hardy Grape source in Small Winery ordinance, supports amending to change grape source to be within City of St. Helena.
Section
17.22.230
Recommendation ‐ change fruit source to City of
St. Helena
L. Hardy Noted history of A‐20 and if not carefully regulated could create conflicts with neighbors. Unconvinced residential requirement belongs as part of Small Winery ordinance.
Section
17.22.230
Comment noted. No change recommended.
L. Hardy Public notice is problematic with ministerial approvals. Section
17.04.080
Comment noted. No change recommended.
C. Warner Treat STRs the same as any other enforcement issues. Section
17.05.100
Comment noted. No change recommended.
C. Warner Treasury Winery's banners‐what is history on their permitting? ‐‐ The City Council added an exclusion to the current zoning code to accommodate this need
for Beringer and it allowed one temporary
advertising sign (up to 60 SF) for a special
business sale or promotional event, provided the
sign is not displayed for more than two weeks at
any time and not more than four times per year.
However in the new code this has changed as a
new content neutral standard. No change
recommended.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 C. Warner Concern with the ban on formula restaurants ‐ could preclude certain high‐end restaurants where there are more than 10 in the nation. Need a clearer definition of Formula Business.
Section
17.22.120
Formula
Businesses
In a call with staff on 11/22/22, Mr. Walsh, City
Attorney, noted the City could not add formula
restaurants to the code without concurrently
amending the General Plan as there are three
specific policies that prohibit formula restaurants
in the City. Recommendation: This important
topic should be addressed after the adoption of
the Zoning Code, perhaps as part the City's
Downtown Specific Plan work in 2023. No change
recommended at this time.
J. Ponte Remember purpose of A‐20 zone ‐ a reserve for expansion and growth.
Chapter 17.19 Comment noted
A. Chouteau Primary reason for A‐20 residence requirement is to slow growth ‐ agree with Chair Ponte.
Chapter 17.19 Comment noted
A. Chouteau Regarding Small Wineries, needs more information about whether to eliminate residential owner requirement.
Section
17.22.230
See previous comment.
A. Chouteau Source of fruit from other places outside of St. Helena OK. Section
17.22.230
See previous comment.
A. Chouteau STRs ‐ supports Todd's edits. Need to be transparent about what a violation is on city website.
Section
17.05.100
See previous response. Staff is preparing
informational material on the STR website for
how to file a complaint and what is a valid
complaint.
E. Hall Support for Mr. S. Goldfarb's recommendations regarding changes to Small Winery ordinance.
Section
17.22.230
See previous response.
P. Dohring Regarding STR ordinance, need balance between predictability and flexibility. 25 STR limit appropriate. A grand compromise. Be as clear as possible defining a violation. Concern with subjectivity in Police reports. Don't make the neighbors the enforcers.
Suggested a two step process.
Section
17.05.100
Comment noted. No change recommended.
E. Hall OK to increase height limits on Main Street ‐ need more density in the core to minimize sprawl.
‐‐ Recommendation: This important topic should be
addressed after the adoption of the Zoning Code,
as changing height limits should support the
future vision for downtown as part the City's
Downtown Specific Plan work in 2023.
A. Chouteau Reconsider the restrictions on materials ‐ be more flexible.
Balance St. Helena's character with cost considerations.
17.11.010 Please see previous responses regarding how
staff proposes to allow more flexibility with
materials in new construction.
C. Warner How does the code implement the Business Recovery Plan. ‐‐ The Business Recovery Plan outlines that the City should explore relaxing the use permit process for
formula retail in order to encourage more
formula retailers. As outlined in the 11‐16‐2022
staff report, there are new regulations for
formula business, including allowing up to four
formula retail businesses by right in the Service
Commercial District. Additionally there are now
specific CUP findings for formula to make the
discretionary use permit process in the CB and
MU districts more objective.
C. Warner How does the code respond to the comments from the Downtown merchants. What changes were made and not made.
‐‐ See attachment to December 7th staff report.
C. Warner Consider options for incentivizing affordable housing. Chapter 17.29 and Chapter
17.30 Affordable housing is incentivized in the following ways:
Chapter 17.29 Density Bonus; Chapter 17.30
Affordable Housing Program; eliminated the
requirement for disbursement of affordable units
in a project; and, generally streamlined the
administrative procedures in Division II.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71
72 73
74 L. Hardy Reconsider the restrictions on formula businesses. Section
17.04.080
Recommendation: This important topic should be
addressed comprehensively as part the City's
proposed Downtown Master Plan and parking
study work post code adoption in 2023.
1. Do these lines, letters and changes enhance or hinder the capacity of either public or private partners to create workforce housing opportunities from a practical standpoint?
‐‐ Yes, they enhance the ability of the City to
create workforce housing opportunities.
2. Do these proposed Zoning Code updates make possible
solutions more or less costly… more or less cumbersome to accomplish?
‐‐ The increased height allowances in the HR zone
and reduced parking requirements result in more
housing that can be developed onsite.
3. Where and how do density and designation changes in the draft zoning map/code draft create workforce housing opportunity spaces?
‐‐ Other than parcels that are being re‐zoned to
MU, this project does not increase densities. The
decision to increase densities would be studied in
the next General Plan update. The zoning code is
one of multiple tools that a developer uses for
building housing. Other factors that determine
feasibility are market forces of land cost, labor
and materials, in addition to leveraging tax
credits.
4. Has the draft map fully considered the designations of City‐ owned properties and how those sites could best serve St.
Helena’s workforce housing needs?
‐‐ The City Council is studying surplus properties
and where it is most feasible to develop housing.
After adoption of the Housing Element in 2023,
the City will initiate a number of General Plan
and/or zone changes to begin implementation of
making certain sites available for housing.
5. How and where does the Zoning Code Update actually
empower, encourage and enable infill development
opportunities?
Chapter 17.16 The new code includes objective standards which creates more certainty for developers on what
standards are required while also allowing multi‐
family development to have ministerial review if
consistent with the standards.
6. Where are references to State‐related mandates aimed at furnishing solutions to workforce housing located that inform where and how those mandates override and/or are exempt from development standards and/or applicable fee structures? Chapter 17.29
and Chapter
17.30 Refer to the Density Bonus Chapter, 17.29.
7. Where and how can we do more to actually create mechanisms that can then furnish real and varied workforce housing opportunities?
Chapter 17.16 The City should continue to negotiate for workforce housing as part of development
agreements for future hotel development.
Work Session #3, December 7, 2022
Trinchero
Family Estates
(email)
Chapter 17.09 Nonconforming Uses:
Sutter Home appreciates the draft legal nonconformity provisions in Chapter 17.09 of the Zoning Code Update. The new certificate of extent of legal nonconformity ("CLN") process provides a tool for the City to document the activities of existing businesses like Sutter Home's Main Street winery facility. For many years, Napa County has made good use of its CLN process, and we applaud the City for implementing its own CLN process. Sutter Home has two comments on the draft provisions that we believe will make the CLN process stronger and more efficient.
Chapter 17.09
Nonconforming
Uses
Comment noted.
OTSH email
from Dan Hale
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
75 76
77 78
79 80
Trinchero
Family Estates
(email)
First, direct non‐residential CLN applications to the Community Development Director rather than the Planning Commission. This would match Napa County's successful CLN process, which is decided by its Zoning Administrator. This could be accomplished simply by striking the phrase "For residential projects" from the first sentence in §17.09.030(F)(3)(b). While the City Planning Commission is accustomed to reviewing new development
applications and taking in public comment, a Planning Commission hearing is less suited to sifting through documentation of existing uses and structures. Making an adjudicative decision on existing rights through a CLN is different that reviewing proposed future development. Review of CLN applications with extensive histories would take an excessive amount of the Commission's limited time.
As an alternative to decision‐making by the Community
Development Director, the City could utilize a hearing officer process.
Chapter 17.09
Nonconforming
Uses
City staff recommends amending this Section so
that the Director may approve CLN applications.
The Code will also allow the Director to refer a
decision on a CLN application to the Planning
Commission.
Also, update Table 17.30.030.A, Review Authority
to reflect this change.
Trinchero
Family Estates
(email)
Second, the CLN process should give great weight to previously issued City permits and allow reasonable inferences from those permits on approved activities. Over time, the City's permitting files, review materials, and general records have grown much more detailed. The applicant bears the burden of proof, but the standard of proof cannot assume that permits issued decades ago will have 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.
Chapter 17.09
Nonconforming
Uses
Comment noted.
Trinchero
Family Estates
(email)
Large Winery Definition:
This definition describes permitted activities including "warehousing and shipping of wine produced on the premises".
This limited scope of shipping and receiving wine contrasts with the definition of wine production, which includes shipping and receiving of bulk wine. Because wineries frequently ship and receive bulk wine that may be blended, refermented, barrel aged or bottled, having harmonious definitions for this activity is important. Therefore, we recommend that the "produced on the premises" language in the Large Winery definition be stricken and that the City of St. Helena utilize the Napa County definition of winery production.
Chapter 17.33 Delete "the produced on the premises" language in the Large Winery definition. In addition, the
revised PRD will expand the definition of Large
Winery to include "the amount of the wine
bottled on the premises in the same given year,
whichever is greater".
Trinchero
Family Estates
(email)
In addition, the comments provided above, Sutter Home agrees with the comments of Treasury Wine estates in Debra Dommen's letter dated November 10, 2022.
‐ Comment noted
Sherri Kelly
(email)
I respectfully ask you to reconsider the proposed changes to the Short Term Rental Municipal Code, which were discussed during the joint City meeting on November 16.
These adjustments will weaken the enforcement of STR rules in St.
Helena. The well being and agency of the city’s citizens should be the foremost consideration in maintaining existing rules. Under the current regulations, citizens have the tools to issue complaints with expectations that the incidents will be investigated. If the proposed changes to the STR Ordinance are implemented, citizens will have little to no peer review of their concerns.
Section
17.05.100.H.4
The proposed STR amendments included as an
attachment to the December 7, 2022 zoning code
staff report were included in the review materials
and staff was not directed to make any additional
changes. See row #33.
Sherri Kelly
(email)
I disagree with allowing only the Planning Director the sole discretion to determine if neighbors’ complaints are valid. Please do not change the enforcements in the original ordinance.
Section
17.05.100.H.4
The proposed STR amendments included as an
attachment to the December 7, 2022 zoning code
staff report were included in the review materials
and staff was not directed to make any additional
changes. See row #33.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
Jerry Hyde
(email)
The requirements of the current STR Code were created on the basis of serious, broad‐based debate and public input.
Even with the current system, mitigating impacts on nearby neighbors can be a problem, but there are at least mechanisms to deal with them when the City takes them seriously.
The proposed changes will negate the enforcement and review provisions we all agreed to, and they should therefore BE REJECTED.
KEEP THE CURRENT STR CODE IN PLACE, as it was and remains the will of all who participated in the process, which occurred before the arrival of our current Planning Director.
Section
17.05.100.H.4
The proposed STR amendments included as an
attachment to the December 7, 2022 zoning code
staff report were included in the review materials
and staff was not directed to make any additional
changes. See row #33.
Polly Ogden
(email)
My primary concern is the rigidity of the Design Standards. I find myself asking "why?" at almost every turn. I think they will serve to hinder creativity and promote "cookie‐cutter" architecture and ultimately not achieve the goal of "creating a more user friendly code, clear standards attracting high quality development and insuring that new development is compatible with neighborhood character". I understand the difficulty of this task as well as the desire to "wrap up" this endeavor. But this document, that will guide construction in St. Helena for years, is too important to not get right. I don't know what the solution is or how best to do this, but know that it has to be done.
Section
17.16.040 and
Section
17.17.040
Please refer to staff report regarding proposed
changes to the objective design standards and the
Track Changes edits to Section 17.16.040, Design
Standards.
Polly Ogden
(email)
Accessory Uses: Pool Houses should be allowed to have indoor plumbing for toilet, sink, shower or pool equipment.
Section
17.16.030
Recommended as a change to the Code.
Polly Ogden
(email)
Max. Primary Building Footprint:
1) Using "Footprint" is confusing and not defined in the definitions. FAR a much more reasonable approach.
Table 17.16.030 No change recommended ‐ this is in keeping with implementation policy in the Community Design
Element of the General Plan. FAR has been
removed from the code.
Polly Ogden
(email)
Max. Primary Building Footprint:
2) The jump from 2400 s.f. for= or less than 15,000 s.f lot to 4800 s.f. for greater than 15,000 s.f. is too drastic. The gradual FAR percentage scale used now is more reasonable. Percentages could be adjusted if scale is the problem.
Table 17.16.030 Replaced with a new sliding scale of building footprint.
Polly Ogden
(email)
Setbacks ‐ Minimum Garage or Carport Setback from Building façade:
A 10 foot setback in MR creates hardship in smaller, narrower lots.
Can force long narrow corridor into the house that has no practical use, wasting valuable square footage that could be used more efficiently and effectively.
Table 17.16.030 LWC recommends a 5‐foot setback from the garage to the front façade of the house. This
provides a typical minimum setback standard to
break up the front plane of a home and ensures
the garage is not the dominant element on the
front façade.
Polly Ogden
(email)
Commercial Uses in CB ‐ Banks and Financial Institutions:
Why are these not allowed on Main Street? What about Umpqua Bank or First American Title? Wells Fargo Bank's address is Main Street but luckily happens to be in MU.
Table 17.17.020 With more customers doing their banking digitally, there is not a need for as many brick and
mortar banks and for the large footprint and
underutilized lots that accompany them. Main
Street is prime real estate and needs businesses
that add vitality and banks do not meet that
criteria. No change recommended.
Polly Ogden
(email)
Commercial Uses in CB and MU ‐ Used Merchandise Store:
Why are these not allowed? lo/o's and la Boheme are both in CB and are both local serving and functional, good stores.
Section
17.17.020
LWC recommends allowing this use in CB and MU.
The next draft will include this revision.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
Polly Ogden
(email)
Commercial Uses in SC ‐ Veterinary Clinic:
Why can there not be overnight boarding of animals'? Forces residents to travel far from town if their pet is in need of such medical attention. Who would this hurt if it were removed? Section
17.17.020
Recommendation: Delete End Note 9 from
Veterinary Clinic so that overnight care of animals
in the clinic is allowed. Retain Animal
boarding/kennel as CUP in the SC zone.
Polly Ogden
(email)
It is really hard to see the crosshatching of the Historic Preservation Overlay. I hope there can be a clearer way of showing this important overlay.
Section
17.21.040
The Historic Overlay will be updated on the
Zoning Map to make it easier to see.
Sasha Janev
(email)
I didn’t see reference to unconditioned basement in any of the zonings and how is basement area treated in terms of FAR. ‐‐ Typically unfinished basements are excluded from
zoning development standards as they do not
impact building massing. No change
recommended.
Sasha Janev
(email)
I don’t think language regarding pre existing non‐conforming structures should change from current code.
Section
17.09.050
Comment noted
Sasha Janev
(email)
I do agree with limiting building area in A‐20 zoning over 2 acres but I think allowed area should be slightly greater than A‐20 under 2 acres or low density 1 acre parcels. Perhaps 1000 ‐1500 s.f. more is appropriate. Or instead additional small dwelling such as guest house should be allowed, limited to 1000 s.f.
Table 17.19.030 Accessory structures like an ADU or a separate garage building are already excluded from max.
ground level floor area. Also refer to the
Accessory Structure section for additional
standards (Section 17.22.020)
Dick
Humphries
(email)
Our neighborhood did not receive an invitation to attend the information meeting until November 30, 2022, and had no prior notice of any stakeholder meetings. This timeframe is untenable and we respectfully request that the information meeting tomorrow is (1) postponed to allow more time to digest and respond to the comments and proposals to date and (2) bifurcated as to the planning commission and city council meetings so that the comments can be appropriately addressed in a transparent and deliberative manner so that the City Council may consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations prior to making its final decision
‐‐ Only the property owners within the proposed HP
Overlay were notified of the November 30, 2022
meeting as that was a focused topic discussion
related to the HP ordinance. Planning
Commission public hearings will be scheduled in
2023 so the Commission may make a
recommendation on the Code for the City
Council's consideration at a future public hearing.
Dick
Humphries
(email)
Turning to our specific concerns, the new zoning districts will allow for multi‐family developments in what is currently a low density residential one acre minimum district. If adopted, future multi‐ family developments would be subject only to ministerial review, thus giving the neighbors no opportunity to object.
Table 17.16.020 Multi‐family dwellings are not allowed in the LR or LR‐1A zones ‐ see Table 17.6.020. However it is
recommended that the definition of multi‐family
unit be updated to exclude duplexes from the
definition, as follows:
Multi‐family dwelling. 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
Dick
Humphries
(email)
The City avers that the LR 1A was combined with the LR zone to “ensure that the proposed primary footprint limit was appropriate for the current LR zone, it was determined a sliding scale based on lot size would be appropriate for the current neighborhood character.” Yet, this change allows for greater development which appears to have the opposite effect of that intended. Stated differently, why is one large house inappropriate, but multiple small houses appropriate?
Zoning Map This decision has been reversed and the LR‐1A zone will remain.
Dick
Humphries
(email)
We respectfully oppose the changes to the zoning districts and contend that the material change to LR‐1A will diminish the rural and bucolic neighborhood that has been established. Further, the changes are diametrically opposed to the City’s intent to try and create zoning ordinances that preserve the historic character of older neighborhoods.
Zoning Map This decision has been reversed and the LR‐1A zone will remain.
Joshua Birch
(email)
Our neighborhood did not receive an invitation to attend the information meeting until November 30, 2022, and had no prior notice of any stakeholder meetings. This timeframe is untenable and we respectfully request that the information meeting tomorrow is (1) postponed to allow more time to digest and respond to the comments and proposals to date and (2) bifurcated as to the planning commission and city council meetings so that the comments can be appropriately addressed in a transparent and deliberative manner so that the City Council may consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations prior to making its final decision
‐‐ Planning Commission public hearings will be
scheduled in 2023 so the Commission may make a
recommendation on the Code for the City
Council's consideration at a future public hearing.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
Joshua Birch
(email)
Turning to our specific concerns, the new zoning districts will allow for multi‐family developments in what is currently a low density residential one acre minimum district. If adopted, future multi‐ family developments would be subject only to ministerial review, thus giving the neighbors no opportunity to object.
Zoning Map Refer to the response in row #95 above.
Joshua Birch
(email)
The City avers that the LR 1A was combined with the LR zone to “ensure that the proposed primary footprint limit was appropriate for the current LR zone, it was determined a sliding scale based on lot size would be appropriate for the current neighborhood character.” Yet, this change allows for greater development which appears to have the opposite effect of that intended. Stated differently, why is one large house inappropriate, but multiple small houses appropriate?
Zoning Map This decision has been reversed and the LR‐1A zone will remain.
Joshua Birch
(email)
We respectfully oppose the changes to the zoning districts and contend that the material change to LR‐1A will diminish the rural and bucolic neighborhood that has been established. Further, the changes are diametrically opposed to the City’s intent to try and create zoning ordinances that preserve the historic character of older neighborhoods.
Zoning Map This decision has been reversed and the LR‐1A zone will remain.
David Walker ‐
Engine Real
Estate
(email)
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 positively impact the continued viability of St. Helena.
Chapter 17.17 Comment noted.
David Walker ‐
Engine Real
Estate
(email)
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.
Section
17.17.020
Use Regulations
&
Section
17.17.040
Design
Standards
Comment noted.
David Walker ‐
Engine Real
Estate
(email)
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. It is important to note, however, that the severe infrastructure needs within the CB including: (i) the deteriorated condition of the sidewalks and curbs, (ii) the lack of parking, (iii) the limitations of the current sewer system, and (iv) access to water will continue to hamper new, responsible development regardless of any loosening of the zoning codes. The infrastructure challenges and the identification of new sources of funding to meet the needs to run together with the zoning effort given the extraordinary barriers to entry that the infrastructure challenges create, regardless of the loosening of permitted uses.
Section
17.17.020
Use Regulations
&
Section
17.17.040
Design
Standards
Comment noted ‐ this would be a decision to be
made by the City separate from adoption of the
Zoning Code.
David Walker ‐
Engine Real
Estate
(email)
Eric Hall was very clear in his various presentations and his ideas should be used as a framework to rapidly seek funding to address our infrastructure needs.
Section
17.17.020
Use Regulations
&
Section
17.17.040
Design
Standards
Comment noted
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
106
107
108
109
110
111
David Walker ‐
Engine Real
Estate
(email)
I strongly support a more comprehensive strategy to address the current parking deficiencies throughout the CB, MU and SC zones.
As I previously indicated above, the lack of an infrastructure plan that addresses a comprehensive parking solution will continue to impede the economic viability of downtown St. Helena.
Furthermore, the rather inconsistent application of in‐lieu parking fees, the mixed signals as to whether they will remain in place or be waived, and lack of transparency surrounding the use of these funds creates frustration and ambiguity within the community.
Section
17.21.030
Parking
Exemption
District
Comment noted ‐ this would be a decision to be
made by the City separate from adoption of the
Zoning Code.
David Walker ‐
Engine Real
Estate
(email)
I suggest an accelerated effort to identify and move forward with a modest parking structure on vacant land proximate to the CB be implemented to address this issue. Parking permits can also be sold to offset the cost of acquiring, constructing, and maintaining the parking area at a moderate cost to residents versus the current system of aggressive parking violations resulting from the lack of parking. The obvious choice is to provide free parking however without a revenue source, I fear the parking solution will never come to pass and remain stalled.
Section
17.21.030
Parking
Exemption
District
Comment noted ‐ this would be a decision to be
made by the City separate from adoption of the
Zoning Code.
David Walker ‐
Engine Real
Estate
(email)
(Comment
continued
below)
The current proposed expansion to allow certain formula businesses within the CB still appears too limited. A zoning code cap of no more than four formula retail businesses throughout all the Central Business, Mixed Use and Service Commercial zones will continue to limit the ability for property owners to attract retailers who have more than a single, local location. While a single‐store location can promote diversity, they also can be less economically viable given their singular location. I feel this limitation unfairly limits the tenant pool that wish to be in St.
Helena and will hinder the economic viability of the CB.
Section
17.05.020
Conditional Use
Permits
&
Section
17.22.120
Formula
Businesses
To clarify, the proposed code includes up to four
formula retail uses in each of the three zoning
categories noted, (CB, MU SC) which actually
would be up to 12 formula retail businesses (not
4). Post code adoption, should the City Council
want to further broaden flexibility, this topic
should be addressed comprehensively as part the
City's proposed Downtown Specific Plan and
parking study.
David Walker ‐
Engine Real
Estate
(email)
To address this, I would propose an interim “multi‐store” category, not subject to the four‐store 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.
Section
17.05.020
Conditional Use
Permits
&
Section
17.22.120
Formula
Businesses
Recommendation: This important topic should be
addressed comprehensively as part the City's
proposed Downtown Master Plan and parking
study work post code adoption in 2023.
David Walker ‐
Engine Real
Estate
(email)
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.
‐‐ Comment noted.
Alan Torrigino
(email)
Please postpone the adoption of the proposed zoning change of LR 1A zone to LR.
I request time to digest and respond to the proposed change. I wish to best understand the pros and cons of the City’s proposal.
Mom and I did not receive an invitation to attend the rezoning meeting until November 30. Such late notification appears to me an action by the City, that for some reason, is being rushed through with little voice given to the stakeholders.
Zoning Map This decision has been reversed and the LR‐1A zone will remain.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
112
113
114
115
116
117
Alan Torrigino
(email)
I am actually surprised that such a proposed zoning change would not include earlier meetings with the Dean York Lane
neighborhood. Such meetings months in advance would provide transparency to the process. Such meetings would give the stakeholders an opportunity to digest the proposal and give the neighborhood knowledgeable voice in the matter.
Our family has cherished our 64 years of pink‐house residency on Dean York Lane. Mom says that about 30 years ago, in preparation for a similar proposal to change the zoning of the neighborhood, the City was up front and provided such meetings for all the stakeholders.
What I glean from this short‐notice proposal, is that the rezoning would dramatically change the unique character of our rural, naturally beautiful, and historic Dean York Lane neighborhood.
Zoning Map This decision has been reversed and the LR‐1A zone will remain.
Alan Torrigino
(email)
These two stakeholders request the opportunity to gain more information, digest, and then knowledgeably respond. Please postpone the adoption of the proposed zoning change of LR 1A zone to LR.
Zoning Map This decision has been reversed and the LR‐1A zone will remain.
I’m writing in as part of the family controlling 905 Main Street, the vacant lot next to Vine Star and Gott’s/Taylors at Main and Charter Oak. (My specific comments on tonight’s topic on parking are attached at the end of this letter ‐ please review). In addition to comments on parking in the new zoning draft, I wanted to submit comments on the overall goals of the new code in increasing residential and non‐residential development in St Helena. My points are below:
‐‐ Comment noted.
1. We hope the city prioritizes significantly reducing permit fees for new businesses in all districts in St Helena. A local real estate agent brought this issue up during the November 16, 2022 presentation and I wanted to emphasize that St Helena’s high permit fees (and all other fees) are a serious barrier for all retailers.
‐‐ Comment noted ‐ this would be a decision to be
made by the City separate from adoption of the
Zoning Code.
2. The stated goal of the zoning draft is to increase business investment in St Helena overall while recognizing the changed retail environment. In order for the city to attract national and regional formula retailers to fill downtown, the city has to offer larger storefronts with more visibility that target these retailers. St Helena’s previous zoning code was for small mom and pop operators of shoe shops, soda fountain shops, etc. ‐ those days are forever gone. I believe the new zoning code doesn’t do enough to recognize this reality. Larger retailers also follow anchors like large hotels, office parks, significant residential populations, etc. I hope the city council and planning realize that we need to attract such anchors to have a successful downtown. This issue was briefly touched upon on November 16 during a very short discussion on downtown height limits, density, etc.
‐‐ Recommendation: This important topic should be
addressed comprehensively as part the City's
proposed Downtown Master Plan and parking
study work following code adoption in 2023.
Walnut Creek is a great example of a thriving downtown core with a mix of local and national retailers. It’s a phenomenal example of a downtown adapting to the new retail environment. As a result, there’s almost zero vacancy. Model Bakery’s newest location in Walnut Creek is at almost 6,000 square feet with visible signage that would be prohibited in St Helena. Lululemon is at almost 6000 sq ft in First Street Napa and 13,000 sq ft in Walnut Creek. I urge the city to take more bold actions in zoning and look at Walnut Creek and First Street.
‐‐ Comment noted.
Connie Min
(email)
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
118
119
120
121
122
123
Connie Wilson
(email)
I respectfully ask you to reconsider the proposed changes to the Short Term Rental Municipal Code, which were discussed during the joint City meeting on November 16. These “minor”
adjustments are anything but, and will weaken the enforcement of STR rules in St. Helena. It is imperative that the considerations of the city’s citizens should be foremost in maintaining existing rules.
Section
17.22.200
No further changes to the STR ordinance are
proposed at this time following the December 7th
joint meeting.
Connie Wilson
(email)
In 2016 I was very much involved during the evaluations of the revised STR Ordinance. I experienced a two‐year battle with a neighbor who continued to rent her house as an illegal STR, despite frequent warnings from City staff. Only when the City conducted a sting did the illegal activity stop, and a hefty fine was paid by the owner. It was up to me to continually make the City aware of the illegal rental, loud noise, increased limo traffic and parking problems. Thankfully today, citizens have the tools to issue complaints with expectations that the incidents will be investigated. If the proposed changes to the STR Ordinance are implemented, citizens will have little to no peer review of their concerns. I disagree with allowing only the Planning Director the sole discretion to determine if neighbors’ complaints are valid.
Section
17.22.200
No further changes to the STR ordinance are
proposed at this time following the December 7th
joint meeting.
Connie Wilson
(email)
In 2016 the citizens of St. Helena were relieved with the protections of the STR Ordinance for the right to safe and quiet neighborhoods. Please do not change the enforcements in the original ordinance.
Section
17.22.200
No further changes to the STR ordinance are
proposed at this time following the December 7th
joint meeting.
Susan Kenward
(email)
In my opinion, the actual changes that need to be incorporated are missing from the proposed changes. As the code reads now, if a neighbor of a STR sends in three complaints to the Planning Director, the neighbor must then wait until the offending STR comes up for renewal before going before the Planning
Commission for review.
Section
17.22.200
No further changes to the STR ordinance are
proposed at this time following the December 7th
joint meeting.
See Susan's letter in the
Meeting Agenda packet
for December 7. It is
written as a narrative
and is an opinion column
which appeared in the
December 1 edition of
the St. Helena Star.
Provided here are
excerpts from the email.
Susan Kenward
(email)
To add insult to injury, the city has for over six months never updated my new local contact person on the website… so we are still calling Southern California! This is inexcusable. If the city doesn’t have the staff to manage the important issue of local contact persons, how will they have the time to document complaints?
Section
17.22.200
Comment noted. See Susan's letter in the
Meeting Agenda packet
for December 7. It is
written as a narrative
and is an opinion column
which appeared in the
December 1 edition of
the St. Helena Star.
Provided here are
excerpts from the email.
Susan Kenward
(email)
Short term rental represents only 10% of the City TOT according to the city’s website. Bottom line, the city just doesn’t have the staff to properly service STR.
Section
17.22.200
No further changes to the STR ordinance are
proposed at this time following the December 7th
joint meeting.
See Susan's letter in the
Meeting Agenda packet
for December 7. It is
written as a narrative
and is an opinion column
which appeared in the
December 1 edition of
the St. Helena Star.
Provided here are
excerpts from the email.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
124
125
126
127
128
Jennifer La
Liberte
(email)
Our Town St Helena (OTSH) appreciates the extensive time, effort and resources the City has expended to get to this point in the process of the Zoning Code update. The Zoning Code is an extremely important policy document through which the City has an opportunity to make great strides in facilitating development of affordable housing. It is critically important to get this right, and our board members and staff appreciate the Council’s, Planning Commission’s, and staff’s willingness to hear our concerns. Of utmost importance to OTSH is that each section of code be considered regarding its potential to increase the likelihood that workforce and affordable housing will be built; or conversely, whether it would be adversely affected by adding time and cost to a prospective project and therefore even more difficult to achieve.
The City of St Helena cannot afford the latter.
‐‐ Comment noted. See Susan's letter in the
Meeting Agenda packet
for December 7. It is
written as a narrative
and is an opinion column
which appeared in the
December 1 edition of
the St. Helena Star.
Provided here are
excerpts from the email.
Jennifer La
Liberte
(email)
For a document this size, it takes a great deal of time to review and digest. OTSH is requesting more time to assemble our comments in a digestible and useful manner for the City’s use, and to work with staff to ensure we can end up with a Zoning Code that achieves the goals stated above. We believe that would be in the City’s and community’s best interest. Adding to the challenge, there is no clear comparison or crosswalk from the current code to the proposed draft updated code, so it is difficult to know what has changed without doing a side‐by‐side comparison. This is complicated by the fact that the documents are structured differently, so side‐by‐side is not achieved easily.
‐‐ Comment noted ‐ it is not possible to create a
side‐by‐side comparison of the current code with
the new code because of the extensive revisions
made to the structure and organization of the
new code.
Jennifer La
Liberte
(email)
In addition to our specific comments (still being compiled), an overriding concern is the inclusion of overly prescriptive and inflexible design standards in the code. We understand the need for development standards, but the proposed architectural design standards are extremely limiting and, in several instances, problematic, particularly for multi‐family residential development.
We respectfully encourage the Council and Planning Commission to take a close look at the proposed design standards with members of the professional design and development community to gain practical insights on how they would impact multi‐family residential projects among other development types. We do appreciate the intent of the design standards to streamline the approval process by reducing discretionary review. However, as written, developers would likely opt for design review by the Planning Commission over complying fully with the design standards because of their limitations. Please consider an alternative to design standards, such as design guidelines, or by‐ right approval if a project meets the development standards.
Section
17.17.040
Design
Standards
Refinements to the design standards are noted in
the staff report and will be discussed at the next
joint meeting of the Planning Commission and
City Council. The draft code does state that multi‐
family projects that meet the development and
objective standards are approved ministerially.
Grace Kistner
(email)
In 2016 when I was on the Planning Commission, the Commission voted to allow Short Term Rentals to continue to operate in St Helena’s residential neighborhoods as long as numerous strict rules were a made part of the Short Term Rental Ordinance. The Ordinance was established to protect not only the City but the neighbors near the Rental. It contained rules pertaining to noise, parking, the number of guests permitted on the property, as well as a publicly posted list of a locally located contact person, available 24 hour to accept calls and be at the property within 30 minutes if problems arise.
Section
17.22.200
No further changes to the STR ordinance are
proposed at this time following the December 7th
joint meeting.
Grace Kistner
(email)
The Ordinance also stipulates that in order to renew a Short Term Rentals Lease it must be sent to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. It also stipulates that the neighbors shall be notified of the public hearing. This allows the neighbors an opportunity to be heard at the meeting and voice their approval or disapproval of renewing the STR.
Section
17.22.200
No further changes to the STR ordinance are
proposed at this time following the December 7th
joint meeting.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
129
130
131
132
133
134
Grace Kistner
(email)
The proposed STR giving the power to the Planning Director the power to approve the renewal of a STR weakens the protection that the approval gave the neighbors.
I very strongly recommend that the PC rejects the proposed change to STR Ordinance.
Section
17.22.200
No further changes to the STR ordinance are
proposed at this time following the December 7th
joint meeting.
Michael
Caldarola
(email)
I write to voice strong agreement with the views expressed by Susan Kenward in her Commentary in the STR. The proposed changes to the Short‐Term Rental Ordinance are anything but minor. They water down the already poorly‐ enforced procedure by which permanent residents can hold STR permittees
accountable for their short‐term renters bad and disruptive behavior. Adopting the proposed changes can only further allow the peace and quiet of neighborhoods to decline, a decline that has been exacerbated by the addition of PACASO homes and their short‐term occupants. Just ask anyone who lives near Sylvaner and Riesling the quality of life at that corner. It seems that the tourist demand for places to stay in St. Helena and City's thirst for TOT are being satisfied at the expense of the residents of settled neighborhoods. Although the existing mechanism of enforcing the STR Ordinance may be rusted, it only needs attention, not revision. Please reject the proposed changes.
Section
17.22.200
No further changes to the STR ordinance are
proposed at this time following the December 7th
joint meeting.
Madelyn
Chandler
(email)
As a local architect, I would like to bring up some concerns regarding the Design Criteria that heavily restrict architectural creativity such as material choices, 2nd story setbacks, building transparency and roof slope. Proposing to prohibit materials, specifically corrugated metal, are unreasonable. Corrugated metal is an historic agrarian building material that has been used for centuries.
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
Please refer to the staff report for a summary of
the proposed changes to the objective standards.
Madelyn
Chandler
(email)
As for 2nd story setbacks, why should a 2 story façade be banned? When you look around town, you can see some of the original and historic farmhouses are 2‐story gable 'flat facades'. Such as 1544 Hudson 1331 Stockton and 1542 Spring, to name a few.
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
A recommended change to the development
standards would be to not require a second story
stepback when a front porch is integrated into
the design.
Madelyn
Chandler
(email)
The City's response to Daniel Hale's email during Work Session #1 on October 26, 2022 is completely subjective, not a detrimental design principal, nor a proven statistic:
D.H.: Questioning the transparency requirements in the design standards. How will this produce more successful buildings? City Response: Good urban design in established neighborhoods creates a rhythm of entrances that are visible from the street. This design standards addresses that design principle.
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
Comment noted.
Madelyn
Chandler
(email)
What is the purpose of these restrictions? In my professional opinion, St. Helena is already becoming too uniform with the white "modern farmhouse" and having this proposed Design Criteria will only increase the repetitive nature of our neighborhoods. Mega suburbs and HOA's ‐ the epitome of
monotony ‐ have similar regulations as our City is proposing. Is this the "desirable character" you are seeking? (17.01.030 D: Maintain and enhance the desirable character of the City and its various neighborhoods and area.)
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
The addition of the added objective standards‐the
State regulations require that cities no longer
regulate housing subjectively and requires
objective standards in zoning codes. Design
guidelines are not objective standards.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
135
136
137
138
139
140
Madelyn
Chandler
(email)
Architectural restrictions should be a balance of between individual rights and protecting the community's well‐being, but this proposal is far overreaching. The points noted above do not advocate any 'purpose' as describes in the zoning update.
Personal taste and unique property configuration is not one‐size‐ fits‐all, therefore the design standards should allow for more flexibility and design freedom. There are people who can design thoughtfully outside of these proposed limitations.
So I ask you; can you not review the appropriateness on a case‐by‐ case basis, since residential projects are subject to design review anyway? Why not have your Design Criteria be a suggested Design Guidelines instead?
I respectfully ask you to reconsider some of these points in the proposed Zoning Code Update.
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
The addition of the added objective standards‐the
State regulations require that cities no longer
regulate housing subjectively and requires
objective standards in zoning codes. Design
guidelines are not objective standards.
Pam Smithers
(email)
I live on S Crane, and my experience is that the 10' setback is barely enough, so please don't reduce that, and is really not material when the home rises 22‐25 feet in the air, right on the setback line. This happened to us. They were completely within their rights. The trees that the planning commission required to shield their roof line from our view have only now started growing tall, years later, and still the effect can be oppressive. Alan Galbraith said we should have complained, but that puts neighbors in a horrible position. (Luckily for us, our neighbors live here full time so at least we didn't have to look at a house bearing down on us that no one lived in!)
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
Comment noted
Pam Smithers
(email)
We have been arguing for some sort of change to the code so these heights are checked. I think the roof setback idea is a good idea, to lessen the impact of height on neighbors. I also like that front doors must be seen, and hope these changes mean there will be less of the tall box designs. They are oppressive. I know some architects favor them but.....not great for neighbors! Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
Comment noted
Pam Smithers
(email)
I also like that much of the decision making will be moved to staff rather than having to come and argue in public. These favors those who don't live here full time and aren't as concerned with their long term relationships with neighbors. And those with deep pockets and lots of time/staff to craft their arguments.
Keep in mind that the architects arguing against some of the proposed changes are only thinking about their clients point of view. Also remember that almost no one takes the time to argue in favor of change. It's almost always just those who oppose who come forward in public. So please don't be fooled when so many are against the changes. Many, many of us are in favor. ‐‐ Comment noted.
Joshua and
Sarah Parke
(email)
The Parkes' expressed concerns the code will be adopted due to a limited amount of budget and time left. The Parkes' addressed concerns on the interconnected impacts of the code, the impact on bottom line, the aesthetics of the build environment, and the impacts on property owners and commercial entities. The Parkes' addressed concerns regarding the specificity of the code to St.
Helena.
‐‐ Comment noted.
Joshua and
Sarah Parke
(email)
Additionally, the Parkes' letter expressed concerns with the process in which the code is reviewed from the Planning Commission and a gap in the public's input and decision‐making authority for revision and adoption as well as the
recommendations from the City's planning staff for the code update. The Parkes' request a survey to business owners and the local professional design community for future input.
‐‐ Comment noted.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
141
142
143
144
145
146
Joshua and
Sarah Parke
(email)
The letter cites "Part II: Administration and Procedures" and below is a direct quote from the property owners:
"This Chapter provides regulations for nonconforming uses, lots, developments, and signs that were lawful at the time of their construction or establishment, but which no longer conform to the regulations of the Zoning Code. The intent of this Chapter is to:
Encourage improvements for appearance, maintenance, and safety, while limiting the extent to which nonconforming uses and structures may continue to be used, altered, expanded, moved, or replaced. Unless specified otherwise, this Chapter is intended to be administered in a manner that encourages the eventual elimination of nonconformities "
Section
17.09.010
Non‐conforming
Provisions +
Section
17.16.040
Nonconforming uses will be a discussion item for
the next PC/CC joint meeting
The commercial and residential design standards put forth in the proposed code impose a design aesthetic akin with a planned development and shopping complex.
Comment noted.
Joshua and
Sarah Parke
(email)
The fact that a property owner or use permit applicant can not submit a planning permit without bringing the entirety of the property (see 17.04.040 B.) to compliance with this code means that property owners will be forced to make structural changes to the tune of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in order make the most basic of changes to their property. To be clear any endeavor that requires a planning submittal will trigger full compliance to proposed design guidelines. If you have a single story house with a roof pitch of between 1 and 5 and wish to add a window you will be required to reframe your roof to comply, if you do not fall within the revised setbacks you will be required to remove a portion of your house.
Section
17.09.010
Non‐conforming
Provisions +
Section
17.16.040
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".
Joshua and
Sarah Parke
(email)
Summary of remaining comment:
If you have a second story stacked directly above a lower wall and want to add a shade overhang, or move a window location, you will be required to cut the second facade off and push the front back 10’ and pull the sides and back in 5’.
Section
17.09.010
Non‐conforming
Provisions +
Section
17.16.040
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".
Joshua and
Sarah Parke
(email)
The Parkes expressed disagreement that any exterior modification shall be subject to the entire property being brought into conformity. They advocate against this and a review of the graphics for design standards in regards to uniformity.
Section
17.09.010
Non‐conforming
Provisions +
Section
17.16.040
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".
Joshua and
Sarah Parke
(email)
The letter cites the following subsection along with comments summarized below:
• Vinyl siding, aluminum siding, artificial stone finishes, plywood (including particle board and oriented strand board), corrugated metal, and common concrete block are prohibited.
• Bright colors must only be used for trim or for accents. • A consistent palette of materials and colors must be used on all sides of buildings.
The Parkes question the design regulations above and hints at them being restrictive. They also question the standards of materials and colors, as well as whether property owners will be subject to updating these regulations throughout an entire property.
Section
17.16.040.6
Exterior Building
Materials and
Colors
Please refer to staff report regarding proposed
changes to the objective design standards and the
Track Changes edits to Section 17.16.040, Design
Standards.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
Elaine DeMan
(email)
In continuing with this process, I sincerely hope the members of the city council and the planning commission will not lose sight of the words spoken by Paul Dohring during his successful mayoral campaign: “We are a community, not a commodity.” Comments to the effect that we should look to cities like Walnut Creek or Yountville as examples to aspire to do not reflect that basic premise. I have been to Walnut Creek. There is no community there. And it is the last thing I, and I predict many of the residents, would want for St. Helena.
‐‐ Comment noted.
Elaine DeMan
(email)
I also reject the notion that more “formula businesses” will result in a more economically viable downtown tenant base, without sacrificing the "small‐town integrity" of St. Helena.” If we want our downtown to be vibrant it should remain, as it is, unique. Formula businesses do not offer that. "Small‐town integrity" implies a sense of community where neighbors know and care about one another and includes a reference to tradition. Formula businesses do not fit within those criteria.
Section
17.22.120
No change is proposed to the draft regulations on
this topic however, it could be reviewed
comprehensively as part the City's proposed
Downtown Specific Plan and parking study work
following code adoption in 2023.
Elaine DeMan
(email)
We are still an agricultural town. Why the rush to be something else...something that would no longer be unique or as desirable? So please uphold any efforts to prevent us from becoming just another cookie‐cutter community.
‐‐ Comment noted.
Elaine DeMan
(email)
In 2016, the citizens of St. Helena received certain protections for the right to safe and quiet neighborhoods through the Short Term Rental Ordinance. The Ordinance contained rules pertaining to noise, parking, and the number of guests permitted on the property, as well as a publicly posted list of a locally located contact person, available 24 hours to accept calls and be at the property within 30 minutes if problems arise. This has been effective in our neighborhood so we request that you do not change the rules of enforcement in the original ordinance.
Section
17.22.200
The proposed STR amendments included as an
attachment to the December 7, 2022 zoning code
staff report were included in the review materials
and staff was not directed to make any additional
changes.
Elaine DeMan
(email)
Currently, we have the tools needed to issue complaints with the expectation that the incidents will be investigated. If the proposed changes to the STR Ordinance are implemented, it will be left up to the planning director, alone, to determine if the neighbor’s complaints are valid. This should be in the hands of community members and subject to peer review.
Section
17.22.200
The proposed STR amendments included as an
attachment to the December 7, 2022 zoning code
staff report were included in the review materials
and staff was not directed to make any additional
changes.
Elaine DeMan
(email)
Additionally, STR renewals should continue to be sent to the Planning Commission for a public hearing so neighbors have an opportunity to be heard and voice their approval or disapproval of renewing the STR. Giving sole power to the Planning Director to approve the renewal of an STR weakens the protections that the approval gave the neighbors and starts to erode our sense of community. Consequently, I strongly recommend that the
proposed change to STR Ordinance be rejected.
Section
17.22.200
The review authority for STR renewals is not
recommended to be changed from the current
code.
Elaine DeMan
(email)
I am also concerned to see some of the Proposed Zoning Map Changes, most notably, the conversion of 20 acres at 1501 Big Rock Road, 20 acres at 2500 Spring Mountain Road, and 20 acres at 2491 Spring Mountain Road from “Woodlands and Watershed” to “Agriculture.” Given the scarcity of water we have all experienced here in St. Helena and throughout the region, and the adverse effects of climate change, we should acknowledge and respect the important role that woodlands and watershed play in recharging our aquifers, curtailing erosion, and sequestering carbon. We are in a climate emergency. Converting any significant woodland and watershed acreage to agriculture is a step in the wrong direction and I hope you will remove those changes from the proposal.
Zoning Map These parcels were noted as map corrections.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
Joe Berchtold
(email)
We object to the new zoning ordinances proposed. While the new zoning ordinances will not impact our pending proposed project, we believe that future projects should not be curtailed by some of the new proposed rules. We appreciate that the stated purpose of the changes is to provide more consistent parameters along with more objective project measurements, however, it appears the changes do not accomplish this intended purpose.
‐‐ Comment noted.
Joe Berchtold
(email)
We request that as the process moves along, the Commission and the Council explain the reasoning behind some of the changes and allow the opportunity for neighbors to voice their concerns. To the extent any response to this letter is warranted, please copy my counsel of record, Katharine Falace.
‐‐ Comment noted.
Public
comment:
Chuck Dack;
Mike Mazza;
Dick Crane;
Glen Smith;
Mike Thomas;
Jeff Fenney;
Jeff
Whitehead;
John Palmer;
Anne Carr;
Doug Shafer;
and Julie
Retton
Opposition to the proposal to rezone all current LR‐1A parcels to LR for a number of reasons including, the unique character of the area, concern for increased density, the implications to Dean York Road which is a private road, traffic, drainage concerns, riparian corridor impacts, fire danger, etc. Many stated that they did not understand the reason for the proposed change ‐ requested a written explanation.
‐‐ PC/CC recommended staff/LWC to retain the LR‐
1A zone.
Polly Ogden
(public
comment)
Agreed with Joe's comments ‐ design standards are a problem.
St. H. is special ‐ "eclectic" with both historic and modern architecture. This is what makes the city special. No need for standards that make the city look too much the same.
Section
17.16.040 and
Section
17.17.040
Comment noted
Roy ? (public
comment)
Lester's neighbor. HP Overlay assumes "old" is the same as "historic", and they are not. Need to be more flexible on this distinction. Lead paint and windows as an example. As written the HP standards may result in devaluing property.
Section
17.21.040
The properties listed in the proposed HP Overlay
originated from the General Plan Appendix A List
of Historic Resources, adopted in 2019. The
General Plan includes policy that structures over
45 years old should be assessed to determine if a
historic resource. Regarding the comment about
devaluing property, please refer to the research
paper that studied the association of historic
designation and property valuation.
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/view
content.cgi?article=1138&context=etdarchive
Connie Min
(public
comment)
Support Joe and Jeff's comments ‐ make St. H. more business friendly. Update the use tables to allow more retailers. Look at how successful Oxbow is in Napa, as well as downtown Walnut Creek and Calistoga.
Section
17.17.020
Significant time and effort was invested in
updating the prior use tables in the non‐
residential zones to add uses that create more
vibrancy, such as public markets, creative arts,
brewpubs, live/work, etc. Additionally many uses
that previously required a CUP are now allowed
by right. Please refer to summary of changes in 12‐
7‐2022 staff report.
Connie Min
(public
comment)
MU zone as mapped is confounding ‐ reconsider the boundaries to match Main Street and the CB zone.
We request that the city include our parcel in the parking exemption overlay district. Our lot is the smallest in the new MU district. In fact, the entire city block where Sunshine Foods is located is both in the MU district and the parking overlay district.
That lot must be at least 30x the size of our property and they are not required to include onsite parking.
Zoning Map The MU parcels as mapped on the Draft Zoning Map are consistent with the General Plan. Any
other rezones to the MU zoning district will need
to be considered together with a General Plan
Map amendment at a future time.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
Daniel Hale
(public
comment)
Spoke to most of the topics in his email sent to the City (design standards, nonconforming structures, too many large policy shifts, take the time to get the Code right).
‐‐ See detailed responses in separate spreadsheet
for Daniel Hale.
Daniel Hale
(public
comment)
Draft Code is not streamlined enough. ‐‐ See detailed responses in separate spreadsheet for Daniel Hale.
Daniel Hale
(public
comment)
Recommend standards to only define massing and the envelope; no need for additional detail.
‐‐ See detailed responses in separate spreadsheet
for Daniel Hale.
Joshua Parke
(public
comment)
Spoke to most of the topics in his email sent to the City. Improve the review process in St. Helena. Don't make even more properties nonconforming. PRD does not make sense. Honor that St. Helena is special.
Comment noted.
Warner (CC) Staff to address how provisions for wildfire prevention have been included in the Code.
‐‐ The St. Helena Fire Department administers the
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) provisions and as
part of development review process they
comment and condition projects on a case by
case basis.
Summary of issues to move forward into the Public Hearing Draft:
Grape source ‐‐ Direction provided to make the requirement less rigid and to change the grape source to only be
within City of St. Helena
Primary residence requirement for small winery in A‐20 zone Chapter 17.19 Eliminate the requirement for the property owner to live on the site of the small winery
Design standards Section
17.16.040 and
Section
17.17.040
Please refer to staff report regarding proposed
changes to the objective design standards and the
Track Changes edits to Section 17.16.040, Design
Standards.
CB setbacks on Adam Street and point of measurement Section
17.17.030
Recommend same as Oak Street, i.e. 8 feet.
Nonconforming structures Chapter 17.09
Nonconforming
Uses
Please refer to the May 10, 2023 staff report for
proposed revisions to this Section.
Extend TUP from 1 to 2 years Section
17.05.110
As recommended by staff and LWC, the Code will
include this revision.
Wine production (L. Hardy's comment) Update the existing definition with additional text from the Napa County definition as follows (new
text in underline)
Wine production. 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
ALSO: Add as a footnote
to Table 17.19.020:
If the new tanks increase
wine production volume
beyond what is
established in an existing
CUP or Certificate of
Legal Non‐Conforming
Use, 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.
CUP for tanks in W zone Chapter 17.19 The Code will be updated to clarify that tanks will only be subject to design review if outdoors.
Maintain the CUP requirement for outdoor tanks
as noted in an earlier response.
LR‐1A rezone to LR issue Chapter 17.26 Add LR‐1A zone back into the code and to the zoning map.
Planning
Commission/
City Council
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
Formula businesses and restaurants Section
17.22.120
Recommendation: No change to formula
restaurant definition after consultation with City
Attorney.
Recommendation: This important topic could be
addressed comprehensively as part the City's
proposed Downtown Specific Plan and parking
study work post code adoption in 2023.
OTSH email
from Jennifer
La Liberte
Regarding the rigid architectural design standards discussed in our prior memo dated December 6, 2022, OTSH board members who specialize in design and development have had productive meetings with staff and have spent numerous hours reviewing the standards and preparing written comments and recommendations addressing their concerns. The general issue is that not nearly enough time has been devoted to making the design standards acceptable, and that such an effort should take a few months. We hope the City will continue working with the design community on this effort until it reaches a supportable conclusion, or better yet, eliminate architectural design standards altogether if at all possible.
Section
17.16.040
Staff has considered the comments received from
one‐on‐one meetings with design stakeholders
and written comments and made
recommendations for change as noted in the May
staff report. Elimination of objective standards is
not recommended and would hamper the multi‐
family ministerial review process.
OTSH email
from Jennifer
La Liberte
Overall, the City must take the time necessary to ensure the Zoning Code would truly facilitate housing development serving low‐ and moderate‐income households, particularly for private sector developers who don’t have the same tools at their disposal that non‐profit housing developers do. Meeting St. Helena’s housing challenges requires all sectors working together. While the changes made to the Density Bonus and Affordable Housing chapters are helpful for low‐income housing projects, Chapter
17.30, “Affordable Housing Program,” should be expanded to include developer incentives for those developing housing for moderate‐income households, such as:
• Streamlined project review within a specified reduced timeframe;
• Building plan checks move to the front of the queue;
• Fee reductions, waivers and/or deferrals; and
• Creation of a policy and mechanism for developer‐recorded deed restrictions on “missing middle” housing in exchange for similar City concessions.
And all low‐ and moderate‐ income housing projects should benefit from:
• An exception to withholding of water connections in a water emergency, because this can have significant negative impacts to project financing which is already overly complicated; and • Elimination of discretionary review wherever possible.
Chapter 17.30
Affordable
Housing
Program
Comments noted. The proposed Housing
Element includes policies that provide a by‐right
streamlined review process for
affordable housing developments meeting state
affordability thresholds, in compliance with SB 35
and SB 330. The proposed Housing Element also
includes policies to further work force housing.
Streamlined review for all multi‐family projects
that meet the objective standards is included in
the draft code.
OTSH email
from Jennifer
La Liberte
Finally, with the current Housing Element Update (HEU) in process, the City has a unique opportunity to ensure these two very important policy documents dovetail nicely into a
comprehensive set of policies. Perhaps the City Council should hold off on the approval of the Zoning Code Update until after the HEU is approved by the State so the City can take the time necessary on the Zoning Code and bring it into conformity with the HEU in one fell swoop.
‐‐ Comment noted. The proposed Housing Element
includes time frames for implementation of all
objectives and many of those are already included
in the draft code.
George
Giannos via
Alexander
Vinedo, LLC
(email)
It was recently brought to our attention that the city is proposing to include the property at 555 Pratt Ave. in a Historic Preservation HP overlay zoning district. We respectfully request that this action not occur, and that the property not be included in the HP Overlay.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Comments Received after December 7, 2022
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
George
Giannos via
Alexander
Vinedo, LLC
(email)
We believe historic preservation is a good idea, especially for the downtown and the surrounding historic districts. However, the application of the HP Overlay on the property located at 855 Pratt Avenue would obstruct reasonable improvements to the Property preventing my client from bettering the Property with safe residential structures and environmentally‐friendly improvements, which we believe would be of benefit to the community.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
George
Giannos via
Alexander
Vinedo, LLC
(email)
The Property at 855 Pratt Ave. and its structures have marginal historical value, and the stringent regulations would hinder necessary improvements to the Property, which would in turn limit the ability of the city to realize an increase in property tax values.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
George
Giannos via
Alexander
Vinedo, LLC
(email)
Applying the HP Overlay to the Property at 855 Pratt Ave. 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.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
George
Giannos via
Alexander
Vinedo, LLC
(email)
Furthermore, the Historic Demolition Permit Section 17.05.040 is cumbersome and creates interruption uncertainty related to its implementation.
Section
17.05.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
George
Giannos via
Alexander
Vinedo, LLC
(email)
We would like to help the city realize its vision by improving the Property at 855 Pratt Ave. 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.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Clark Sather via
Walker Warner
Architects, LLC
(email)
My clients, the property owners of the house at 855 Pratt Ave, recently acquired the referenced property and will be pursuing various permits to enhance the property including preservation of the agricultural uses while enriching the architectural landscape of the property. 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
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May staff report.
Clark Sather via
Walker Warner
Architects, LLC
(email)
The proposal to include the property at 855 Pratt Ave within the HP Overlay zoning district has created nervousness. 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.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Clark Sather via
Walker Warner
Architects, LLC
(email)
Furthermore, the HP Overlay district provides no incentive for preservation, which will limit necessary improvements to properties that are unsafe.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
Clark Sather via
Walker Warner
Architects, LLC
(email)
Should the city elect not to remove the property at 855 Pratt Ave from the proposed HP Overlay zoning district, I request that the city provide clear incentives to the owners. The HP Overlay is an opportunity to provide special accommodations and special forms of zoning relief that may provide additional preservation incentives to owners of these resources. For example, Los Gatos allows existing uses not otherwise permitted in the underlying zoning districts to continue in its Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay Zones. In this case, the city should allow an increase in lot coverage, reduce setbacks, provide opportunity for Mills Act contracts, and provide opportunity for additional housing units (e.g., two accessory dwelling units or multi‐ family uses) or non‐residential uses to offset the cost of preservation. Absent incentives, the property should be removed from the HP Overlay zoning district.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Christine R.
Wade via SSL
Law Firm, LLP
(email)
The City of Saint Helena (the “City”) is proposing to amend its municipal code to add a Historic Preservation Overlay district with the goal of protecting significant historical resources within the City. The proposed ordinance is neither necessary to achieve that goal nor supported by sufficient evidence and analysis. The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) already provides significant protection for historic resources as do various sections of the City’s municipal code. There is no reasonable justification for imposing an additional overlay district on certain property owners.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Christine R.
Wade via SSL
Law Firm, LLP
(email)
The proposed district and designated properties rely primarily on an inventory and reconnaissance survey conducted by Page and Turnbull Architects in 2006. The report recognizes that further study of the individual properties is necessary, In order to properly consider a structure to be a significant historic resource and thereby justify the punitive standards set forth in the proposed ordinance, a complete historic resource evaluation would need to be conducted for each property.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Christine R.
Wade via SSL
Law Firm, LLP
(email)
At the very least, the ordinance must provide property owners the chance to establish that a building or structure does NOT meet the necessary criteria. This is particularly so, 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.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Christine R.
Wade via SSL
Law Firm, LLP
(email)
The City’s existing code Section 17.05.040 includes provisions that would allow for demolition of a potential historic resource. The proposed ordinance is impermissibly vague in that it does not specify whether properties placed within the district might still be eligible for demolition under these existing provisions. As you are aware, CEQA, its regulations and relevant case law, all provide that even a significant historic resource can be demolished, removed and/or relocated if appropriate findings can be made. The City’s proposed ordinance cannot foreclose those possibilities and should follow governing state law on the topic.
Section
17.05.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Christine R.
Wade via SSL
Law Firm, LLP
(email)
The proposed ordinance, specifically Chapter 17.21.040, results in a permanent and significant diminution in property value because Chapter 17.21.040 provides no opportunity to consider demolition of structure(s) on the property. The draft code provides no opportunity to remove or delete the zoning overlay designation should the property and/or the structures be found not to possess any historical significance.
Chapter
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Christine R.
Wade via SSL
Law Firm, LLP
(email)
The proposed ordinance also completely ignores structures that were either missed by the 2006 survey or those that may since or at some point in the future, become historically significant.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 A B CD E
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
Christine R.
Wade via SSL
Law Firm, LLP
(email)
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. This proposed ordinance does just the opposite. For example, Section 17.21.040.E. refers to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and then inexplicably and
irreconcilably states that the general principles shall be “mandatory” for all properties within the overlay district. These guidelines, though, are designed only for rehabilitation which is defined as the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. They would have no applicability, for example, to new construction which is also addressed in the proposed ordinance. In addition, there are merely “principles” not regulations or standards that can readily be applied to a development application.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Christine R.
Wade via SSL
Law Firm, LLP
(email)
The City’s proposed historic preservation overlay district imposes too steep a penalty on property owners because it includes no mechanism to remove a property from the district and no opportunity for a property owner to establish that his or her property does not in fact qualify as a significant resource.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Christine R.
Wade via SSL
Law Firm, LLP
(email)
It also reaches well beyond potential historic resources to new structures, establishing arbitrary design standards that do not bear any reasonable relationship to historic preservation.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Christine R.
Wade via SSL
Law Firm, LLP
(email)
The proposal also fails to consider that the 2006 survey did not amount to an appropriate historic resource evaluation.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
Christine R.
Wade via SSL
Law Firm, LLP
(email)
We 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.
Section
17.21.040
A letter response was sent to the commentator
and is attached to the May 10, 2023 staff report.
022223 Email
from Maya
City staff has confirmed that the sidewalk width and material standards in this Section are correct as written.
Section
17.16.040.A.8.d
No change to this standard is recommended.
Agenda Item #8.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 B C DE F
City of St. Helena ‐ Zoning Code Update
Tracking Public Comments JOE McGRATH ‐ City Council/Planning Commission Work Sessions Updated: April 28, 2023 Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
Joe McGrath
(public comment)
Acknowledged there are some good things in the PRD.
Make a clearer distinction between ministerial and discretionary review.
Design standards are too arbitrary ‐ they will kill creative design (see separate comments).
Unsubsidized workforce housing is too hard to build because of its expense.
‐‐ Noted
Joe McGrath
(email letter to
CC)
Include more to ensure housing can be affordable in St. H.
Review standards to ensure no unforeseen costs.
‐‐ Comment noted. Density bonus law allows
concessions to help remove regulation obstacles
that make housing projects more expensive.
Most development costs are driven by land
costs, labor, and materials.
Joe McGrath
(email)
Include the requirements for a complete Design Review Application in the ZC.
Chapter 17.05 ‐
Major and Minor
Design Review
Consistent with the rest of the code LWC does
not recommend adding these to the ZC ‐ include
the requirements on the application form.
Joe McGrath
(email)
It should be made very clear that Design Review is not a discretionary review for entitled “by‐right” projects. Design Review, in this case, is to shape a project in the interest of all stakeholders and the community, not a determination if an entitled, by‐right project can be built or not.
Section 17.05.070
and ‐080
If a new single family project meets objective
standards, does it still have Major Design
Review? Yes, please see Section 17.05.070.B
which lists that a new single‐family home is
included in the applicability criteria for Major
Design Review.
Joe McGrath
(email)
It appears that the intent of this draft is to streamline applications that meet design guidelines which allows them to forego Major Design Review in some instances. This is a noble cause and I am full support. However, the document would be much more clear and use a process outline with “if, then” type process flow.
Section 17.05.070
and ‐080
Multi‐family projects which meet the objective
standards are not subject to Major Design
Review. As stated above, the City may still
require Major Design Review for new single
family homes, which the community wanted to
remain discretionary, but with more specific and
objective criteria. City may develop flow charts
as desired.
Joe McGrath
(email)
It is critical to getting Design Guidelines right. It is very difficult to do architecture by numbers, and we should be skeptical of quantitative values in relation to aesthetic design features.
Section 17.05.070
and ‐080
State legislation requires cities eliminate
subjective standards and only use "objective
design standards". Design standards are
objective if they are measurable, verifiable and
knowable to all parties prior to project submittal.
For this reason many of the new design
standards added to the code have added
numerical standards in order to meet the new
criteria.
Joe McGrath
(email)
New multi‐family residential is not identified under 17.05.070.C Applicability. Is this an omission? or is this indicating that if Design Standards are met and application is compliant to all other codes, that an application can forego Major Design Review? This process flow needs to be clarified.
Section
17.05.070.C
If a MF project does not meet objective
standards, is there a discretionary process? No, it
must comply.
LWC to add new MFR to Minor Design Review in
Section 17.08.080.
Joe McGrath
(public comments)
Slow down code adoption. PC/CC needs to ensure the code meets the intent of the GP.
How many CUPs have been issues in past 2‐3 years?
Suggested the number of CUPs in use table be reduced and allow more uses by right as P or MUP.
Architecture by numbers a problem.
City should allow form‐board concrete finishes.
OK with a limit on STRs.
The updated Code will implement the General
Plan ‐ this was a stated purpose of the project.
The number of CUPs for uses has been reduced
from the current zoning code based on input
from Downtown stakeholders and the
Subcommittee.
Regarding "Architecture by Numbers", in the
November 16th joint meeting the City Attorney
described the legal basis for objective standards
in the code.
Please refer to the staff report regarding
proposed changes to the objective design
standards and the Track Changes edits to Section
17.16.040, Design Standards.
Colored cells indicate recommended changes to the Public Hearing Draft
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Private Open Space for Multi‐Family Development
This requirement should be eliminated or decreased significantly. If this requirement extends to all upstairs units, then it requires balconies on all upper units. Balconies are costly and can be problematic for water intrusion. If this requirement remains, it should be reduced to ~ 24 SF (e.g., 4' * 6') with a minimum distance of 4'. There also should be an option for this requirement to be met with Juliet Balcony.
This is an onerous and expensive requirement for upper floors of multi‐family. This would equate to a 10’ x 12’ balcony. Many jurisdictions require private exterior space on exterior units, but much smaller square footage (closer to 50 SF). This requirement should be reconsidered as it will cost out market based multi‐family solutions and preclude modular construction solutions.
Table 17.16.030
Development
Standards ‐
Residential
Zoning Districts
LWC will reduce exterior open space to 80 sq ft
for MR and 60 sq ft for HR.
Joe McGrath
(email letter to
CC)
Concern with the 120 sf open space requirement for MFR (thought this meant balconies).
Table 17.16.030 LWC recommends retaining 120 sf as a standard for private open space on the ground floor. On
upper floors a recommended updated standard
for min. balcony size will apply, i.e. 80 sf for MR
and 60 sf for HR
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Min. Dimension for Common Usable Open Space
This requirement is acceptable. However I do not understand why the requirement is greater for small lot development?
Table 17.16.030
Development
Standards ‐
Residential
Zoning Districts
Small lot developments do not have large
outdoor yards for play or recreation areas, and
instead they rely on the common useable open
space within the project for these areas; hence
the larger requirement. No change
recommended.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Min. Landscaped Area:
25% is a high %. 25% of the lot area may not be available once building footprint, parking, and side setbacks are considered. Focus should be on landscaping the front setback area, and common use area.
Table 17.16.030
Development
Standards ‐
Residential
Zoning Districts
LWC recommends eliminating this standard.
Instead require that all of the unpaved areas of
the lot, especially the front and street side
setback areas, that are not paved for driveways,
walkways, etc. must be landscaped consistent
with Chapter 17.25 (Landscaping)
Joe McGrath
(email)
Vertical and Horizontal undulation of building massing is important to urban scale and context. Putting specific numbers on this is challenging and somewhat architecture by numbers. There are urban settings (Georgian London for example) that work well with very poor massing ‐ if looking at it strictly by numbers. In that instance, building articulation makes up for single plane massing.
We should scrutinize every numeric value we put
in aesthetic design standards.
Section
17.16.040.A.1.a
18” vertical offset
every three units
With the passing of SB 330, cities may no longer
use subjective standards in zoning codes as part
of new regulations. Instead, new regulations
must be objective which is why many of the new
zoning code design standards include numeric
values.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
This is a highly constrictive requirement and should be rewritten.
Shouldn't this be applied only if /when both neighboring properties are at setback plane or say placed within 10' of the setback plane. A better way to place this requirement is to say that second stories have 2x the setback requirement called out in the development standards. That would allow much more design flexibility and allow a planar two story facade if setback 20' in a 10' setback.
Section
17.16.040.A.2
A proposed addition to the development
standards allowing a front porch instead of a
second story stepback is recommended by staff
and should mitigate this concern. The existing
requirement for second story stepbacks on the
side and rear elevations will be deleted.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Not really sure what this means. Section
17.16.040.A.3.a
LWC to rewrite to make this requirement clearer.
Please refer to the staff
report regarding
proposed changes to the
objective design
standards and the Track
Changes edits to Section
17.16.040, Design
Standards. This comment
applies to all Section
17.16.040 comments
below
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
21 22
23 24
25 Joe McGrath
(email)
Separation of windows ‐ This requirement for multi‐family residential could preclude cost‐effective solutions such as modular construction that may likely have mirrored units opposite of each other. 12’ seems an onerous distance. This requirement should also be contained with the opposing window/facade distance. For example, if the opposing façade is > 8’, then the windows can be opposite. (I have strived on my projects to have window fenestrations on two planes of a room. This requirement may entice developers to remove a window on one facade.
Section
17.16.040.A.3.b.
12’ separation of
windows
This is also a function of the required setbacks
and stepbacks. E.g. MR side setback is 15 feet on
each lot (total 30 feet). And there is an additional
5 foot setback for each second story.
No change to the standard recommended,
except that LWC will clarify this standard.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
If you assume 9' ceilings w/ 11' exterior facade height and standard header height of 6'10" and say sill height of < 2'10" ( a 4' tall window) , for any given linear foot of facade, only 4' of 11' (36%) is available as an "opening". So 20% would be more than half of all linear wall space. This likely poses shear wall challenges.
I think a better way to do this is to try and eliminate the "blank wall" which might say something like "at least one fenestration must be placed at minimum every 16' of linear wall".
Section
17.16.040.A.4
LWC recommends revising this standard as
follows:
Building Transparency. At least 20 percent of the
area of each street‐facing facade of a residential
building must consist of windows, doors, or
other openings. No wall that faces a sidewalk,
pedestrian walkway, or publicly accessible
outdoor space may run in a continuous plane of
more than 10 feet without a window, door, or
other opening. In the MR district, the front door
of any primary single‐family unit must be visible
to the public street.
Wall Planes: Building offsets, roof overhangs, bay
windows, use of a variety of materials, and other
features as determined by the Community
Development Director shall be used to reduce
building massing. The following requirements
apply:
1. Unbroken wall planes of 10 feet or more in
width are prohibited on walls facing a sidewalk,
pedestrian walkway, or publicly accessible
outdoor space.
2. Any wall plane larger than 10 feet in width
shall incorporate windows, doors, or other
openings; be articulated (i.e. break up the wall
plane); or incorporate design features such as
bay windows, balconies or verandas, or a change
in material or color; and
3. On corner lots, elevations oriented towards
both street frontages shall include the same
architectural design character on each elevation.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
All roof pitches should be allowed.
4:12 is by far the most common roof slope. Is this standard eliminating 1:12‐4:12 pitches? I see no public benefit of this requirement. 3:12 and less pitches on 2‐story buildings are likely not visible from ground level.
Section
17.16.040.A.5.a
Flat Roofs of Roof
>= 5:12 pitch
LWC will remove the roof pitch requirement.
Joe McGrath
(email letter to
CC)
Why was roof‐pitch changed? Section
17.16.040, etc.
After further consideration of roof pitch design
not being a design issue in this community, it has
been recommended for removal.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Plate heights are for framing and do not necessarily translate to external articulation. Eliminate this entirely.
Section
17.16.040.A.5.b
LWC recommends that this requirement should
be deleted. Other standards such as the second
story stepback requirement and overall building
height standard provide sufficient form control.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Plate heights are for framing and do not necessarily translate to external articulation. Eliminate this entirely.
The market effectively requires and desires a 9’ apartment ceiling.
Volumetric modular construction has a higher stack height than conventional construction since the floor and ceiling assemblies on stacked units are not integral like conventional construction. There are benefits to this with respect to both firewall separation between units as well as sound attenuation. However, the stack height of one floor of a modular unit is between 10’6” and 11’. If you stack a second story module over the first, it may likely exceed the 20’ second floor plate height. It is unclear what the public benefit of this requirement is? The structure is already limited by overall height restrictions.
Section
17.16.040.A.5.c
Second Floor
Plate not to
exceed 20 ft
LWC recommends that this requirement should
be deleted. Other standards such as the second
story stepback requirement and overall building
height standard provide sufficient form control.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Is this 6' min for shingle roofs only? What about raised seam metal or other roof types? Why be so specifically restrictive? In another section there is a desire for dormers as articulation. Wouldn't most dormers have < 6" ridge line?
Why? Attic venting cupolas would violate this guideline. These features are in the historic architectural vernacular of Napa Valley.
Section
17.16.040.A.5.d
Min 6’ ridgeline
for single roof
Typographic error ‐ correct to "single". This sub
section is recommended to be deleted.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
All materials should be allowed. Period.
If you want to restrict material then focus on properties like reflectivity.
Particle Board and OSB are not rated or exterior applications anyway.
Plywood? What about resawn plywood for board & batten. The entire Montessori School is resawn plywood.
Corrugated? Corrugated has been a part of Napa Valley and California's architectural vernacular for over a century.
Artificial Stone? Does that include brick veneers? Seismic requirements basically dictate that all stone applications are veneers only and not structural.
This is an overreach on the part of the Zoning Code. For example, corrugated metal siding is not only a popular design aesthetic, it has been used throughout Napa Valley history as a barn siding and fits within the architectural vernacular of our agrarian past and present. It is also fire‐retardant and cost‐effective. I can comprehend a code based on siding reflectivity, but to exclude a material class (particularly corrugated) outright is overreach.
Section
17.16.040.A.6.a
Prohibited Siding
Materials
Building palettes were originally determined in
collaboration with the subcommittee and also
selected based on finishes that support design
excellence while allowing for architectural
expression. Please refer to the staff report
regarding proposed changes to the objective
design standards and the Track Changes edits to
Section 17.16.040, Design Standards.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
This is not an objective standard, unless you use a reflectivity number. What is bright? Does this exclude white?
Section
17.16.040.A.6.b
Recommend that all of the color standards to be
removed as the City has not had past issues with
color choices.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
This seems very subjective. Who arbitrates a "consistent" palette? Section
17.16.040.A.6.c
Recommend that this standard be clarified and
rewritten to remove "consistent" and instead to
refer to "four‐sided architecture or a similar
term, i.e. all four sides of a building must be
designed and finished to the same standard and
with the same materials
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
This seems acceptable, however this should allow for bioretention areas to be considered landscaped area.
Section
17.16.040.A.7
LWC recommends this text will be inserted into
the Section 17.25, Landscaping, to include
bioretention areas.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Should only be required when ADA triggered under CBC. Section
17.16.040.A.8.d
The City Building Official has confirmed this
standard for walkway materials is OK as written.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
This is confusing and not clear. Section
17.16.040.A.8.g
LWC to rewrite to make this requirement clearer
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Ok. But reduce the SF required on upper stories and/or allow Juliet balconies in lieu of.
Section
17.16.040.A.10
A Juliet balcony defeats the purpose of private
open space. As noted above the requirement for
open space (balconies) has been reduced in MR
and HR
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 Joe McGrath
(email)
These requirements are already covered by CBC and redundant. Section
17.16.040.A.12
Sustainable and
Energy Efficiency
OK ‐ LWC and City staff recommend deleting this
section except that paragraph 12.d requiring
drought tolerant landscaping should be retained
and moved to Chapter 17.25 (Landscaping)
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Eliminate. Redundant to CBC. Section
17.16.040.A.12.a
LWC to delete from the Code.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Eliminate. Redundant to CBC. Section
17.16.040.A.12.b
LWC to delete from the Code.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
I do not believe this is legal. Do black solar panels blend in with white cool roofs?
Section
17.16.040.A.12.c
LWC to delete from the Code.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Acceptable. This is redundant to WELO. Section
17.16.040.A.12.d
The cross reference to WELO is included in
Chapter 17.25, Landscaping.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Why would you have to state this? Section
17.16.040.B.3
To make it clear that no other setbacks for small
lot developments are applicable. No change
recommended.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
"Generally" oriented is a vague term. Section
17.16.040.B.4.b
LWC recommends deleting "generally".
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
25% (i.e. min area of small lot development that must be landscaped) seems high, based on circulation requirements. (Same comment as above)
Section
17.16.040.B.7.a
Similar comment to that for Table 17.16.030.
LWC recommends eliminating this standard.
Instead require that that all of the unpaved areas
of the lot, especially the front and street side
setback areas that are not paved for driveways,
walkways, etc. must be landscaped consistent
with Chapter 17.25 (Landscaping)
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Upper Floor Units should have/use common space requirements not private ground‐floor open space requirements.
Section
17.16.040.B.8.a
LWC recommends reducing the required ground
level private open space requirement to 100
feet. This may include a porch, deck, patio or
garden area. The min. dimension of 6 feet is
smaller than that included in most other codes (8
feet is typical.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Upper Floor Units should have/use common space requirements not private ground‐floor open space requirements.
Section
17.16.040.B.8.b
The min. dimension of 6 feet is smaller than that
included in most other codes (8 feet is typical. No
change recommended.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
This is confusing. What does one to three units mean? Is it every unit requires 18" vertical offset from the adjacent unit, or minimum one offset for every three units?
Section
17.16.040.C.1.a
LWC recommends this text can be rewritten and
clarified as follows:
The roofline on the longest at each building
elevations shall demonstrate an include a vertical
offset of at least 18 inches for each unit or for
each pair of one to three units exposed on that
elevation.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
This is an onerous and costly requirement and should be eliminated.
Section
17.16.040.C.1.b
City staff and LWC recommend that this standard
is unnecessary and can be deleted. The standard
in C.1.a will provide the articulation desired.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
This seems acceptable and is much more clear than 1a. Section
17.16.040.C.1.c
Noted
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Seems subjective. Who arbitrates "complimentary"? Section
17.16.040.C.1.d
LWC to clarify this requirement ‐ change
"complementary" with "consistent"?
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Ok. Seems acceptable. Please add awnings. But bay windows!? Section
17.16.040.C.1.e
LWC will add awnings.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
This is not acceptable. Section
17.16.040.C.1.g
LWC recommends that a change in color and
materials may be added as an acceptable
alternative treatment on lower floors.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Why two? One is sufficient. Section
17.16.040.C.1.h
LWC to edit text to state only one window.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Who arbitrates "unified" and "complementary". Eliminate. Section
17.16.040.C.1.i
Recommend that this standard be deleted.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
This is a strange requirement. Often you may see a HORIZONTAL articulation at the same height as adjacent building height. Chicago has lots of these.
Section
17.16.040.C.1.j
No change recommended.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
This seems acceptable but should have maximum distance
associated with it so that it would no longer apply at say 12' + distance.
Section
17.16.040.C.1.k
LWC recommends adding a max. distance of 12
feet.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Ok. This seems acceptable. However, please clarify if this can be met with interior in‐unit storage. Can it be interior storage on upper floors? Or is it only satisfied with ground floor exterior storage.
Please clarify ‐ internal or external?
Section
17.16.040.C.1.l
200’ CU FT of
storage space
LWC will amend this standard to allow the
storage to be located within a building or
external to the building i.e. in a carport or on a
balcony. LWC recommends not overregulating ‐
the storage could be internal to the unit or
external.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
What if the unit is not on the right away and is on site interior parking instead? Please add shared pathway.
Section
17.16.040.C.3.a
LWC will add shared pathway.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Ok. But Please change to 4 units. 4 units is symmetrical. Section
17.16.040.C.3.c
LWC will change to four units.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Shouldn't this say "where adjacent lot is zoned LR". What defines a single‐family neighborhood.
Section
17.16.040.C.3.d
LWC to make this change ‐ where adjacent lot is
zoned LR and MR (There are single family
neighborhoods also in MR)
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Having common space visible from all units is not practical nor likely feasible on most lots. Accessibility is already covered by ADA requirements.
Section
17.16.040.C.4.c
Change "Accessibility" to "Visibility" in the
subtitle and in the standard. The idea is to
ensure that the common space is safe, especially
for children. Making them visible from units is
one way of ensuring this ‐ it's the idea of "eyes
on the street". Replace "all units" with " a
minimum of 50 percent of units".
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
This is acceptable, but limit this to the first 50' of setback from the street or something like that.
Section
17.16.040.C.5.a.ii
No change recommended.
Joe McGrath
(email 12‐16‐22)
Redundant to CBC/ADA. Eliminate. Has no place in Design Review Standards.
Section
17.16.040.C.6
(a‐d)
Universal Design
LWC to delete from the Code.
Agenda Item #8.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 B C DE F
City of St. Helena ‐ Zoning Code Update
Tracking Public Comments DANIEL HALE ‐ City Council/Planning Commission Work Sessions Updated: April 28, 2023 Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
Daniel Hale
(email)
Reserved for? Chapter 17.02
Reserved
Any future new section that may be needed.
Daniel Hale
(email)
ZC needs a comprehensive rethinking ‐ it is a large step backwards ‐‐ Comment noted.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Include an introduction that describes the key items that have changed from the old code to the PRD. Explain what sections changed and why.
‐‐ Addressed in staff reports from City staff‐see
October 26, 2022 report.
Daniel Hale
(email)
17.05.030 B and C are in conflict and purposefully vague (IE “all 50+ years old” or at the discretion of the CDD? which is it?) Section
17.05.030.B and
17.05.030.C
Sections B and C are not in conflict. Section B
pertains to buildings less than 50 year old and
Section C clarifies how to proceed if the
structure is over 50 years. All decisions on the
Code are made by the Director even if not
specifically called out. And they are
appealable.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Make the effort to get the list to be correct. Very inconsistent approach to what is historic. Overlay map (hatched parcels) at a glance has great inaccuracies…a few startling examples: Signorelli barn? (a cherished and majestic AND missing edifice) House on SE corner of Hudson and Adams (10 years old?/how is it there?) House on SW corner of Allyn/Adams (12‐ ish years old?/how is it there?) Barn on 1443 Madrona (built 1890? but missing How is it NOT there?) SE corner off Main and Adams (Sportago) (new build included in overlay) Same with Chase bank building Railroad and Adams (new build included in overlay)…Clear Inconsistency breeds uneven application and uncertain direction and expectations.
Make it clear that it is not a “district” (implies boundaries) but instead as it stands is a collection of individual parcels (it IS perhaps an overlay…with some/many inaccurate moments… but it is NOT a district)
Section
17.05.040
The list on which the Zoning Map and the HP
Overlay was derived is included in the General
Plan. Staff will check the buildings in this list
and verify. Any updates to the HP excel file will
be given to LWC to revise the map. Regarding
the concern about "district", the proposed
zoning map does not note the HP Overlay as a
district nor does the title of 17.21.040.
Daniel Hale
(email)
“The Community Development Director may, on a case by case basis, require the applicant to erect story poles on the project site to illustrate the height and or scale of a two story (or more) proposal, particularly when there are adjacent neighboring structures”
This inclusion (story poles) has no basis in current or in draft code.
It insinuates that any neighbors view is somehow protected by more than just the envelopes created and defined by height limits and setbacks that exist in Code. It undermines property values and will only serve to create drama and dissatisfaction. There are certainly jurisdictions that have protective view ordinances that require the erection of story Poles (IE Carmel by the Sea…and others) Those also have a very clearly defined view that is subject to protection…HOWEVER owners know AND understand AND
Contractually sign onto that understanding when they purchase those properties in those jurisdiction that are subject to those codes. Those Codes were created at the inception of those communities. To do so after the fact equates to nothing less than a confiscation of existing values and contractual rights.
Section
17.05.070.D.3
Major Design
Review
It was at the direction of the Zoning Code
Subcommittee that this provision was added
to the code, as noted, for use on a case by case
basis. There is no loss of property rights if an
applicant is asked to provide story poles. The
City finds that the public review process can be
improved in some circumstances by including
physical markers such as story poles so
location and height are better visualized. No
change recommended.
Colored cells indicate recommended changes to the Public Hearing Draft
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
12 13
14 15
16 17
Daniel Hale
(email)
Attached below are sections of current and draft code relating to legal nonconforming structures and the rules that define alteration/expansion/ renovation/remodeling. Note the critical and material addition (in draft) of paragraph A (Expansion and enlargement/especially last sentence). Should this draft language be approved ANY legal non conforming property owner that considers or undertakes any sort of change (absorbed/remodeled into or made part of) without removal of existing (legal) non conformance areas. The last code revision placed a majority of our existing structures into some form of non conformance
(setbacks/frontage requirements/lot sizes etc.…) and also understand that the revised code (if approved) will also do the same (even recently constructed structures) will find themselves in the nonconforming category.
“Expansion and Enlargement. 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 highlighted in red type is EXTREMELY problematic and effects any work/expansion done to any non‐conforming legal structures in town. A LARGE majority of structures are
“nonconforming legal structures” and if this draft is approved will include myriad newly created “nonconforming legal structures”.
Chapter 17.09
Nonconforming
Provisions
Section
17.09.050.A
To clarify, the non‐conforming ordinance for
structures has two main components, one for
expansion and enlargement (17.09.050 A) and
one for remodel, rehab and alteration
(17.09.050 B). Mr. Hale’s comment seems to
indicate that any proposed change to a non‐
conforming building, including remodeling and
rehabilitation would require the removal of
the part of the building that is non‐
conforming. That is incorrect. The code in part
B above allows for remodels, rehabilitation
and alteration of non‐conforming structures.
Regarding the last sentence added to Section
A, upon further review, staff does find it to be
in conflict with the sentence that precedes it
and, therefore, it could create confusion.
Staff's recommended changes to the code will
include deletion of this text and the
policymakers can make the final determination
on whether there is support to allow flexibility
for property owners with non‐conforming
structures to expand, but not increase the
degree of non‐conformity.
He further notes: "I
believe the magnitude of
this change in
approach/rule is one
that materially effects
and is an affront to every
property owner in Saint
Helena. I do not believe
it should be considered
as I believe it is an
incorrect and
unproductive approach."
Daniel Hale
(email)
Similar to notes on 17.05.
17.05.040 Make the effort to get the list to be correct. Very inconsistent approach to what is historic. Overlay map (hatched parcels) at a glance has great inaccuracies…a few startling examples: Signorelli barn? (a cherished and majestic AND missing edifice) House on SE corner of Hudson and Adams (10 years old?/how is it there?) House on SW corner of Allyn/Adams (12‐ish years old?/how is it there?) Barn on 1443 Madrona (built 1890? but missing How is it NOT there?) Clear Inconsistency breeds uneven application and uncertain direction and expectations.
Make it clear that it is not a “district” (implies boundaries) but instead as it stands is a collection of individual parcels (it IS perhaps an overlay…with some inaccurate moments… but it is NOT a district)
Chapter 17.10
Historic
Designation
The list on which the Zoning Map and the HP
Overlay was derived is included in the General
Plan. Staff will check the buildings in this list
and verify if some need to come off and if
these were in GP. Staff will also check with BBK
if the "District" name needs to be removed.
Any updates to the HP excel file will be given
to LWC to revise the map.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Review and Hearing Procedures: This seems counterproductive and at cross purposes. I wholly support the concept of
administrative review and approval by Planning staff. Instead of producing an automatic path with a hearing (notice etc.…) perhaps instead simply outline a path/ procedure to appeal a Planning Staff decision.
Section
17.11.010.H
To clarify, a public notice is prepared, but
there is not an automatic hearing. The hearing
is only if requested in writing prior to the date
of decision.
All decisions of staff/CDD may be appealed. No
change recommended.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Reserved for? Chapter 17.14
Reserved
Any future new section that may be needed.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Highly support the intro of mixed use as a classification. Chapter 17.15 Establishment of
Base Zoning
Districts
Noted
Daniel Hale
(email)
“
1 Indoor plumbing and indoor cooking facilities not permitted." Table 17.16.020 bottom note on indoor plumbing: Should be revised to allow bathrooms and workshop/garage/utility sinks but not indoor cooking facilities.
Table 17.16.020 LWC will accept this recommendation and edit the footnote
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 Daniel Hale
(email)
Mistake in “Development standards”: table 17.16.030 item marked as 5 in diagram is incorrect (arrow should span from setback line to facade of garage.) Graphic error aside I believe this restriction is burdensome and should be removed as it may largely constrict good flow and functioning of layouts.
Table 17.16.030 Noted and will be corrected by LWC
Daniel Hale
(email)
"Small lot" development should follow standards for small lots without a use permit. Adding cost and process will inhibit workforce housing solutions in some of the most likely areas that may occur.
Table 17.16.030 With the significant changes to the small lot ordinance, staff recommends that this version
of the ordinance still require a CUP for the
creation of small lots. However, development
on an existing small lot should not require a
CUP and LWC will review the code to make any
clarifications.
Daniel Hale
(email)
I do not believe that the same size lot in LR and MR should have wildly varied allowable square footages. If so the reasoning should be demonstrated or at minimum discussed. This change has material effects upon lots all about town and materially effects values…at this point seemingly arbitrarily.
Chapter 17.16
Residential
Zoning Districts
LR provides for density of 1‐5 units/acre; MR
allows for 5‐16 units/acre, which is why the
standards are different.
Need to test standards ‐ concern with changes to FAR Chapter 17.16 LWC submitted examples of buildout scenarios of one and two stories in all residential zones
for subcommittee consideration.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Continue to believe it is important to maintain a uniform/universal methodology to determine allowed square footage IE FAR that is based upon the square footage of the lot. as it does in current code. To introduce different methodologies that allow different results in MR and LR on a same size lot seems likely to stir resentments and does not produce clarity.
Why has FAR as a concept has been removed as a method to determine the allowed square footage on each lot? Determined instead by allowed footprint on main floor + allowed second floor as defined by a 10’ step back from front facade and 5’ step back from both side and rear facades?
Detailed comparison of new floor area allowances to actual lots in town
Include an introduction ‐ why is FAR no longer used?
Why the shift in allowable floor area in LR areas compared to MR areas?
Chapter 17.16
Residential
Zoning Districts
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 General Plan
policy CD3.1 which specifically states building
envelope sizes should be limited in residential
neighborhoods.
A new sliding scale for building footprint will
be inserted into the LR zone. It should also be
noted that The Turner Center for Housing
Innovation (UC Berkeley) noted that most
cities do not use FAR to control building size
for residential development. (Reference
"Potential Impact of SB 478 on local FAR and
Minimum Lot Size Requirements" April 5,
2021 ) Daniel Hale
(email)
“Footprint” Change from FAR methodology that calibrates allowed development based upon lot size (sf) to a 2 tier methodology that also introduces a delineation for first and second level (which incidentally encourages second levels) is a MAJOR change that at least requires some back up reasoning and discussion before Council signs on to a Highly consequential shift, on behalf of all Citizens of St Helena.
Chapter 17.16
Residential
Zoning Districts
Both the creation of maximum building
footprint sizes and second story step backs are
policy direction from the Community Design
Element of General Plan policy.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Are un‐enclosed porches included in “Primary building footprint?” square footage?
Section
17.34.050 and ‐
060
Clarify in Section 16.34.050 and ‐060 that
porches are excluded from building footprint
and FAR.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 Daniel Hale
(email)
“Max Building Frontage” Should be defined as what is allowed at initial front setback from front lot line (not actual front of structure). The only way to apply the code uniformly and fairly on all parcels would be to define an allowed envelop (that exists and defines) irrelevant of actual/ proposed built environment. Two tiered system does not make sense as applied to actual lots in town. I believe the (current) uniform 60% building frontage at initial setback was effective and served to limit massing but also allow creative solutions. I also believe that the current code has often been mis‐applied though. The only equitable/universal approach would be to define the envelopes allowed (those should begin at the initial setback lines), which may occur forward of the actual initial building frontage. The inclusion of the current methodology that also defines a setback to that initial building frontage that increases to max width allowed by each side setbacks is appropriate. A simple diagram may best illustrate this. (IE showing the building width at 20’ beyond the initial facade width and corresponding expansion in width as it steps back to 20’ beyond initial front setback, at which point Code allows you to meet each side setback if desired.
Chapter 17.16
Residential
Zoning Districts
The city's interpretation of this standard has
not been clear and consistent. It is, therefore,
recommended that it is best to delete this
altogether now that the Code includes
limitations on max. building footprint.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Highly support interior side setback to a minimum 5’ and ‐15’ combined methodology. Much more productive/environmentally sensitive land use and preservation and lot utility. Encourages smaller footprints.
Chapter 17.16
Residential
Zoning Districts
Noted
Daniel Hale
(email)
“Min landscaped area”… Chapter 17.16
Residential
Zoning Districts
No comment submitted
Daniel Hale
(email)
“Private open space/common usable open space” Should be removed.
Table 17.16.030 LWC will reduce exterior open space to 80 sq ft for MR and 60 sq ft for HR.
Daniel Hale
(email)
General comment is that City should not be engaged in the design business. Mandating ziggurats…layer cakes “transparency” “facade articulation” or most any architecture by formula is both a crushing attack on creativity and individual expression and also it is not something that will lead to a better built environment.
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
Comment noted. Please refer to the criteria
for objective standards noted on city website‐
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/planning/page
/objective‐standards‐information‐and‐
resources
Daniel Hale
(email)
From 17.16.040.6.a: “Vinyl siding, aluminum siding, artificial stone finishes, plywood (including particle board and oriented strand board), corrugated metal, and common concrete block are prohibited.”
Both ignores and degrades the very architectural vernacular fabric that informs the desirable character that we cherish. Obliterates creativity and does so in a very limited and subjective manner. It also eliminates some tried and true cost effective durable solutions that make it both more expensive for anyone producing any tier housing solutions but especially those that are struggling to furnish housing solutions in a cost effective manner. Look around and observe some of our most cherished buildings and the varied materials they are created with. The rich and varied texture is an aspect that I believe should be fostered and encouraged…not crushed
Section
17.16.040.6.a
Building palettes were originally determined in
collaboration with the subcommittee and also
selected based on finishes that support design
excellence while allowing for architectural
expression. Please refer to the staff report
regarding proposed changes to the objective
design standards and the Track Changes edits
to Section 17.16.040, Design Standards. These
will, for example, delete the prohibition on
artificial stone finishes, and will allow
corrugated metal as a roof material in all
zones, and corrugated metal as a siding
material in the A‐20, MR, and HR zones.
Daniel Hale
(email)
“General Standards. All development is subject to the provisions of Part IV, Citywide Standards. from 17.01.030 : D. Maintain and enhance the desirable character of the City and its various neighborhoods and areas;” How does a code that energetically would prohibit most and nearly all of the historic buildings (IE those structures could NOT be built under draft Code) that we cherish and refer to as informing our “desirable character” can at the same time enhance that same desirable character?
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
Much of the code changes in the single family
zones was in response to incompatible new
development allowed by the existing code.
Many of the proposed code changes have
been informed by the Community Design
Element of General Plan to further the goal of
enhancing neighborhood character.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
32 33
34 35
36 37
Daniel Hale
(email)
“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.” Above should be removed. Massing is currently regulated by the defined envelop that is informed by the front/side/rear setbacks combined with the allowed floor areas and the height limits. That is a tried and true trusted and universal practice. It is a better approach to allow creativity within those understood and reasonable bounds. A consistent and clear demonstration of what Code allows and restricts (and by that clearly informs both applicants and neighbors what to expect…IE what they are allowed to build in the future and what may be possible to be built next door to them).
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
Setbacks for second stories: The Draft Code
generally carries forward existing standards.
Step‐backs for second stories: In order to help
reduce massing of new second story
construction, a step back from the first story is
a common design principle. See also General
Plan policy CD3.2 regarding incorporating the
use of stepbacks.
The Code will be updated to allow a porch
element that spans the front elevation of a
two story home to count as a stepback and the
existing requirement in the PRD for a second
story stepback on the rear and side elevations
will be deleted.
Daniel Hale
(email)
“Facade transparency” Figure 17.16.040.A: If the figure reflects applicable(required) 5’ setbacks the building represented would be 55’ wide which would be in conflict with the max building frontage requirement. Sometimes pictures are not worth a thousand words.
Questioning the transparency requirements in the design standards. How will this produce more successful buildings? Figure
17.16.040.A
Good urban design in established
neighborhoods creates a rhythm of entrances
that are visible from the street. This design
standard addresses that design principle.
Please refer to staff report regarding proposed
changes to the objective design standards and
the Track Changes edits to Section 17.16.040,
Design Standards
Daniel Hale
(email)
“Roofline and roof design”
Who decided that the range between flat and 5:12 is somehow not acceptable and how is this not a subjective requirement? Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
The standards for roof pitch will be removed
from the Code
Daniel Hale
(email)
“The minimum dimension (depth, length, or length at ridge) for any shingle roof form visible from the public right‐of‐way is six feet.”….Arbitrary and purposeless unless someone can explain the genesis/reasoning behind?
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
Typographic error ‐ correct to "single" (This
section will be removed. See previous
response)
Daniel Hale
(email)
“First and second story plate height”
This appears again arbitrary and counterproductive attack on creativity/innovation and not effective. A code allowed/prompted second floor may well be much more offensive than a high plated single story or vice versa. Should be simply a definition of allowed envelop that is created by the combination of setbacks from property lines and heights that correspond to those setbacks.
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
The plate height standards will be removed
from the Code.
Daniel Hale
(email)
“Exterior Building Materials and Colors”
These are arbitrary and subjective choices. AND also onerous and potentially costly. And also ignores/degrades the local vernacular that informs the “desired character” that we claim to want to enhance.
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
Building palettes were originally determined in
collaboration with the subcommittee and also
selected based on finishes that support design
excellence while allowing for architectural
expression. Please refer to the staff report
regarding proposed changes to the objective
design standards and the Track Changes edits
to Section 17.16.040, Design Standards. These
will, for example, delete the prohibition on
artificial stone finishes, and will allow
corrugated metal as a roof material in all
zones, and corrugated metal as a siding
material in the A‐20, MR, and HR zones.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 Daniel Hale
(email)
“Exterior Building Materials and Colors”
Is white a bright color?
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
See comment above. The requirements for
colors in subsection 6.b will be removed from
the Code.
Daniel Hale
(email)
This entire section in Draft is in dire need of very close scrutiny and revision. In many areas seems arbitrary and purposeless and in other areas It is a grotesque over‐reach.
Section
17.16.040
Design
Standards
Please refer to Objective Design Standards on
City website that provides legal basis for this
part of the code, and also provides clarity and
more certainty for builders.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Strongly support the intro of Mixed‐Use (MU) designation and believe wherever reasonable to expand the placement of this designation should be considered. MU is one of the most likely places for vibrancy to take hold. Expanding Height limits I believe should be considered/ discussed as stacking above parking can enable many more powerful solutions.
Section
17.17.030
Commercial and
Mixed Use
Districts
Noted
Daniel Hale
(email)
First do no harm…? Again any architecture by formula/widget “building Articulation” “belt Courses” “Mandatory cornices” window proportion ratios” etc.…is a grand mistake/fumble. Should be removed entirely. City should not be… and should not endeavor to enter the design business.
Section
17.17.040
Design
Standards
Some cities do indeed regulated buildings to
this level of detail, especially in areas with
historic buildings and character.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Seem possibly a lost opportunity to not allow live work and multi‐ family in the SC district.
Table 17.17.020 The General Plan SC land use designation does not include residential. The zoning district uses
need to be consistent with the General Plan.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Why is City owned Railroad Ave site rezoned as BPO in draft Zoning map? Limits residential/ workforce housing capacity?
Chapter 17.18
Business and
Industrial
Repeat comment
Daniel Hale
(email)
Food trucks/restaurants could well have a productive
place/purpose in both Industrial and mixed use districts.
Chapter 17.18
Business and
Industrial
LWC recommends allowing food trucks in the I
and MU districts
Daniel Hale
(email)
17.21.040 cites many examples that are not accurate to this area. (example “This may include wood siding (in a lap dimension of no greater than 4‐1/2 inches) likely the most typical historic horizontal siding would be approximately 8” in width.
17.21.040.F.2.c.i LWC and City staff recommend removing the dimension standards for lap siding
Daniel Hale
(email)
Brick is certainly not a common material in historic homes of the area
17.21.040.F.2.b The reference is general in that brick is a common historic building material.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Need clarification on Historic overlay district. Map only shows individual parcels in historic overlay…”district” has no boundary.
Chapter 17.21
Overlay Districts
Please refer to earlier comment in row 10 on
the question of "district".
Daniel Hale
(email)
It is not mandated that ADUs be rented and perhaps also ADUs may well (legally) be occupied by the owner and the main dwelling may be rented.(as a method to make underused main dwellings possibly available to families where the more‐full use has naturally diminished over time by the current owner/resident. The rental income (either condition) is not within the purview of the City to control unless perhaps they were to underwrite the cost of the creation of the said ADU. The ADU enabling state mandates are intended to provide or make more feasible the creation of ADUs. It does not take a position or suggest control over the rental activity of those units.
17.22.030.E.6 This is not an uncommon standard in many
zoning codes. No change recommended.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
Daniel Hale
(email)
Support entirely the creation of live work opportunities Section
17.22.140
Noted
Daniel Hale
(email)
Find figure 17.22.140A to be unclear. Dashed lines mean? Raised private courtyard on bottom most figure diagram?
Figure
17.22.140.A
Recommend that the vertical dashed lines are
removed
Daniel Hale
(email)
Reserved for? Chapter 17.23
Reserved
Any future new section that may be needed.
Daniel Hale
(email)
General comment is that this requirement is overcomplicated and burdensome (initial cost and upkeep) to both individual homeowners and any that may consider developing affordable housing. Too many % formulas are not calculable or enforceable by current staffing levels nor the Planning Commission.
Chapter 17.25
Landscaping
The standards are very typical of many cities
and towns for landscaping. City staff and LWC
recommends updating 17.25.050 C 1.a‐in the
CB on Main street where most building have
front zero setback so cannot meet the
standard requiring landscaping. This exception
will be added.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Applicability items 2 and 3. How can you have a code that differentiates based upon the classification of the owner/creator of the landscape?
Section
17.25.020
This provision will be deleted.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Item 6 under requirements: 30% limit on gravel/pavers is counter to being waterwise Requiring entire front setbacks to be “landscaped” is contrary to stated xeriscape principles and is burdensome (initial cost and upkeep) to both individual homeowners and any that may consider developing affordable housing.
17.25.050.B.6 Based on research of other communities in the area the 30% standard is typical. No change
recommended.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Removal of the covered parking requirement is a good idea for both homeowners and affordable housing projects.
Chapter 17.26
Parking and
Loading
Noted
Daniel Hale
(email)
Entirely too complicated (40 pages?) and not within the actual functionality of Planning Commission…goes well beyond scope of any demonstrated need. I believe that signage is a critical part of business branding and that expression is better left in the hands of those business owners. In four years on Planning Commission there was not one sign that I believed would have been
detrimental to the functioning of St Helena. The process however was expensive and often excruciating (for both applicants, staff and some Commissioners and Public Viewers) and served as a sign instead for the reliable determination of town to hinder and stifle or micromanage commerce and generally over‐control which I do believe has been detrimental to our sustainability. I believe that stance needs to change. A simple and clear size limit is appropriate and it should be a simple administrative (staff) approval.
Chapter 17.27
Signs
The sign standards were updated to ensure
they were content‐neutral based on the US
Supreme Court's decision in Reed v Town of
Gilbert. This required a substantial
reorganization of the contents. Many of the
existing standards were carried forward. The
number of pages increased because the
standards for each sign type are presented in
simple tables with an illustration of that sign
type, and that takes up more space.
Ultimately, the sign standards are better
organized and presented to be easier for an
applicant to read and apply.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Believe this should be combined with the following Affordable Housing section of draft Code 17.30 and should be a sub‐ chapter/header.
Chapter 17.29
Density Bonus
No change recommended based on
consultation with the City Attorney.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Affordable Housing (Program?)
Believe the title is generally inaccurate/misleading by the inclusion of the word (Program)… perhaps better title just Affordable Housing. The individual items within subsections are generally well laid out and informative/important pieces of information but do not amount to a program that implies a plan with definable goals.
Chapter 17.30
Affordable
Housing
No change recommended ‐there are a number
of items addressing affordable housing in this
chapter. The policymakers may recommend
the change if they find it misleading.
Daniel Hale
(email)
17.31.050 Not Historic: Should be allowed…every available space counts and should be fostered…Can certainly be sensitively designed as to not compromise the existing Historic structure and could ideally compliment it.
Section
17.31.050.D
The State SB 9 ordinance allows a City to
exempt historic properties from two‐unit
projects in order to maximize the preservation
of the structure.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Critical inclusion: Building site. The portion of a lot where the principal building can be located. Excludes the setbacks required by the zoning district.
Chapter 17.32
Definition of
Terms
This definition is included in the Definitions
Chapter.
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
61 62
63 64
65 66
Daniel Hale
(email)
Demolition. The intentional removal of all or part of a building or structure when a building or structure is a designated historic landmark or located in a designated historic district. In all other areas of the City “demolition” means the intentional destruction and removal of 50 percent or more of the enclosing finished floor exterior walls and 50 percent of the roof structure of any building or structure. The percentage of this definition is determined using linear feet of finished floor.
The above use of “and” will be very problematic
Please demonstrate the “use of linear feet of finished floor” Believe the existing definition is more appropriate:
“In all other areas of the city “demolition ” means the intentional removal of all or part of a building or structure resulting in removal of more than fifty (50) percent of the exterior walls or removal of significant architectural features.”
As this determines a threshold for requiring design review it is a pretty critical item. The preamble to this Draft represents a streamlining goal/effect…this item alone will throw many projects into the Design Review category.
Chapter 17.32
Definition of
Terms
Unclear why the use of "and" will be
problematic.
No change recommended ‐ City staff noted
that it is important to keep linear feet as the
City wants to measure the amount of intact or
removed walls, which is easiest measured
linear, defined as the length of the wall.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Floor Area Ratio? Are un‐enclosed Porches included in Calculating Floor Area ratio? (currently they are NOT).
Chapter 17.32
Definition of
Terms
For zones that include FAR standards, the code
will be amended to clarify that porches will be
excluded from FAR or floor area.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Setbacks figure 17.32.B “irregular Lot” rear setback can and should conform to lot irregularity (IE setbacks should simply be measured perpendicular to property line)
Chapter 17.32
Definition of
Terms
Comment unclear ‐ no change recommended
as the Figure is clear
Daniel Hale
(email)
The current approach is more effective. Height should be measured from existing grade and the envelop formed by the height limit at each setback point (imagine a tent supported by poles that are cut to the height limits allowed) That is the most clear/accurate/uniform and informative approach.
Section
17.34.030.A
Measuring
Building Height
The explanation in the code works well for
sloped grade. The Code will be amended to
carry over the current regulation for when not
on slope
Daniel Hale
(email)
Again generally having mixed methodologies (FAR/Footprint) is counterproductive and will engender confusion. Porches are currently not included in FAR but are included in Lot coverage.
That is a reasonable approach as it sets a limit on overall massing and also serves as a method to soften overall massing. The draft approach includes porches in the foot print which will have the effect of eliminating porches which I do not believe is the intent. If it is the intent what is the argument in favor of that result? In any case need clarity on how to calculate porch square footage.
Section
17.34.050
Measuring Floor
Area and Floor
Area Ratio
Clarify in Section 16.34.050 and 060 porches
are excluded from building footprint and FAR.
Daniel Hale
(email)
On a corner lot condition I believe that conditions where possible should mirror each other on either side of a fence. (IE a side yard condition should meet a side yard condition) To solve that the rear yard setback would be applied at inside corner but you would have an interior side yard setback up to the point where it meets the rear yard setback. The effect would be to mark a square at back inside corner where the lot and its 2 contiguous neighbors intersect/meet so similar conditions best align.
Figure 17.34.050
Determining
Setbacks
Include an illustration showing how setbacks
are determined on a corner lot
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 Daniel Hale
(email)
Zoning Map:
Eastern half of City owned Adams street has been redesigned as CB. Seems appropriate to address/have an open discussion on that change in designation?
‐‐ Please refer to General Plan Figure 2‐8, Land
Use Change Areas, site 1. The referenced
portion of the Adams Street parcel was
designated as CB and previously evaluated
(with public hearings) prior to adoption of the
2019 General Plan.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Zoning Map:
Railroad Ave site is now BPO? Should that not be designated to also make it most ready to allow possible workforce housing solutions? Mixed Use perhaps? Same with the Lot to North of Eastern spur of Adams(currently West America bank) and also closed BofA location to South of Adams street? What other sites (City owned or in private hands) could be so enabled to provide sites the best chance they could then be envisioned for actual solutions?
‐‐ Regarding the zoning map, the intent of this
code update was to bring the zoning
designations into consistency with the General
Plan land use designations. The development
potential of the sites noted in the comment is
not part of this work effort, but following the
Housing Element adoption, the City will begin
the process of amending the General Plan and
zoning designations of city owned sites to
realize their highest and best use.
Daniel Hale
(email)
Zoning Map:
The Zoning Map can create opportunities to begin to solve actual problems and needs to be seen as such. As it stands it is a missed opportunity.
‐‐ The zoning map was updated as part of this
work to be consistent with the zoning code as
it implements the General Plan. Any action to
"solve actual problems and needs" may occur
at a future time.
Daniel Hale
(email)
General Comments:
Using different methodologies (FAR and footprint) in different areas is confusing and I do not believe effective. Should be a uniform approach that applies universally throughout Zoning designations. Allowed development limits and envelopes should be applied in the same manner and are adequately informed by the setbacks from property lines as prescribed in code and the height limits allowed at those setbacks. Initial building facade width and also the allowed lot coverage also defines very clearly allowed envelopes. That consistent application very simply informs both future applicants and neighbors as to expectations (built or not yet built).
‐‐ See prior responses on FAR
Daniel Hale
(email)
General Comments:
St Helena is not alone in facing a housing crisis. It needs to be understood that it does so within confines that are particularly challenging. (Limited land/boundaries) AND land/development and construction costs at daunting levels. Each and every piece of Code needs to be considered as to effects on the likelihood of encouraging production of, or inhibiting much needed workforce housing…and producing that in the most healthy and sustainable ways. General approach of “FIRST DO NO HARM…” is critical. Do not add Code unless true NEED has been adequately
demonstrated. Same threshold should be applied to changes. ‐‐ Noted
Daniel Hale
(email)
General Comments:
Miscellaneous sections that seem to arbitrarily add cost need to be rejected as they will surely inhibit and limit needed solutions. ‐‐ Noted
Daniel Hale
(email)
General Comments:
Miscellaneous sections that ban materials that may well be cost effective also inhibit/hobble needed solutions.
‐‐ Noted
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
74 Daniel Hale
(email)
Mr. Hale expressed concerns to ensure the translation of the code to the public is clear and easily understood. A core area of concern is how the new code handles architectural non‐conformities and a belief the new code is "snuffing out" these non‐conformities, which he rejects. He also writes about the new code limiting creative and individual expression of residential design and hints at "subjective prescriptions" not contributing towards a better environment. Provided here are questions from Mr. Hale's email in which he asks for more time to address policy questions for the code:
Have District and site designations and changes been viewed under the lens of creating the most possible environments to create vital and vibrant workforce housing solutions?
Have we neglected to consider and include in this opportunity those sites that have partial approvals and some headway that will require a future zoning designation change but are left still floundering? Why not combine the endeavor and lighten the burden to allow more swift realization of those outcomes where appropriate?
Have we overburdened a struggling commercial district with regulations that will serve only to hobble and inhibit the very creative engines that we need to attract?
‐‐ First paragraph: Noted; responses to these
general comments are included above.
Second paragraph: Throughout the Code
update, LWC has worked very closely with City
staff to ensure that within the General Plan's
policies, the Code includes regulations and
procedures that support the City's desire for
more workforce housing options. This
includes, for example, the inclusion of a new
Mixed‐Use zone, live‐work standards, and
small lot development opportunities.
Third paragraph: The adopting ordinance for
the updated Code will include what are
sometimes called "rules of transition", i.e.
provisions to address projects for which
complete submittals have been accepted by
the City under the existing Code, and which
will, therefore, not be subject to the new
updated Code.
Fourth paragraph: Fourth paragraph: The
updated Code includes more commercial uses
by right in the commercial zones, and
additional uses have been added consistent to
create more activity and vibrancy in
Downtown based on comments received in
July 2021 in a meeting with Downtown
stakeholders.
Agenda Item #8.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 B C DE F
City of St. Helena ‐ Zoning Code Update
Tracking Public Comments GREG DESMOND ‐ City Council/Planning Commission Work Sessions Updated: April 28, 2023 Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
Greg Desmond
(email)
Determination of Similar use – this section mentions that the community development director can administratively determine that the proposed uses are like those of the appropriate use category where the uses are clearly similar in character to those uses listed and consistent with the purposes of the zoning district and General Plan. Does this action require confirmation by the planning commission or can it only be appealed to the planning commission?
Section
17.04.050.A
Does not require confirmation by the Planning
Commission; however the decision may be
appealed to the Planning Commission.
This section mentions that a historic resource determination report _MAY_ be required if a structure that is 50 years old or more is proposed for demolition. This specific requirement needs clarification or needs to be revised to state that a historic resource determination report _IS_ or _IS NOT_ required.
Section
17.05.030.C.1
Comment noted. LWC will delete "may be
required" and state "is required".
This demolition finding states: “the building to be demolished does not reflect neglect by the owner”. I am not clear on what the intent/purpose of this finding is.
Section
17.05.030.D.4
A demolition proposed for a property in a
deteriorated state as a result of lack of
maintenance is known as "demolition by neglect".
Owners who avoid repairing historic properties
should not be able to easily seek approval to
demolish the structure.
Please see 17.21.040. Section
17.05.040.B.1
and B.3
See comment below in Section 17.21.040.
Public Notice – is this mailed to parcel owners w/in 300’ or? Section
17.05.090.E.2.a
Yes. The noticing requirement is in Section
17.04.080.
Hearing – one request for a hearing triggers a hearing? Section
17.05.090.E.2.b
Yes, this is correct.
Nonconforming Provisions:
Reads: “Encourage improvements for appearance, maintenance, and safety, while limiting the extent to which nonconforming uses and structures may continue to be used, altered, expanded, moved, or replaced. Unless specified otherwise, this Chapter is intended to be administered in a manner that encourages the eventual elimination of nonconformities.” Given that this and previous zoning code updates have created non‐conforming situations, what does the update provide in terms of mechanism(s) which will allow parcel owners to reasonably address this situation? Example:
Section 17.112.090 of the current SHMC was created to address the fact that the 1993 Zoning code update essentially created entire neighborhoods which were non‐conforming. I do not see this section in the draft code update. Another example: 1153 Main Street is developed with an existing service station which is a conditional permitted use in the CB District but is not listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the MU District.
Section
17.09.010.A
This item will be a policy discussion at the next
joint meeting .
Why include the last sentence which reads “Unless specified otherwise, this Chapter is intended to be administered in a manner that encourages the eventual elimination of nonconformities”? Section
17.09.030.A
This item will be a policy discussion at the next
joint meeting .
Colored cells indicate recommended changes to the Public Hearing Draft Greg Desmond
(email)
Greg Desmond
(email)
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
The last sentence which reads: “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.” Is not consistent 17.09.050(B) which reads: “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.A
To clarify, the non‐conforming ordinance for
structures has two main components, one for
expansion and enlargement (17.09.050 A) and one
for remodel, rehab and alteration (17.09.050 B).
The code in part B above allows for remodels,
rehabilitation and alteration of non‐conforming
structures. Regarding the last sentence added to
Section A, upon further review, staff does find it to
be in conflict with the sentence that precedes it
and, therefore, it could create confusion. Staff's
recommended changes to the code will include
deletion of this text and the policymakers can
make the final determination on whether there is
support to allow flexibility for property owners
with non‐conforming structures to expand, but
not increase the degree of non‐conformity.
Greg Desmond
(email)
Please see 17.21.040. Section
17.10.010.A
See comment below in Section 17.21.040.
This is a great addition. However, the hearing process will be extra work for staff.
Section
17.11.010
Noted
Recommend allowing Minor Modifications for uses as well as development standards.
Section
17.11.010
See Section 17.04.050 ‐ Director may already make
a determination of a similar use.
Recommend including adjacent neighbor approval as a criterion for projects requesting to conform to the existing nonconforming neighborhood setbacks.
Section
17.11.010.B
No change recommended.
Recommend allowing plumbing (sink/toilet/shower) (no bathtub and no kitchen) in accessory structures.
Table 17.16.020
Footnote #1
See comments from Joe McGrath on this topic.
Accept recommendations.
“Densities existing as of January 1, 2023, are permitted to remain.” Can staff and/or consultants please elaborate on this? Does this mean that any parcel/structure existing prior to the adoption of the new code will be allowed to remain at whatever density exists even if a future remodel/expansion of the structure is proposed? Also, this footnote is only applied to the LR district. Please confirm if this is correct or if the footnote is meant to apply to all residential districts?
Table 17.16.030
Footnote #3
This End Note will be applied to the LR and LR‐1A
for the situations where there is a larger lot to
maintain current character.
Maximum building height. Recommend allowing additional height in the HR (+ MU) districts to accommodate podium parking (parking on ground floor).
Table 17.16.030 City staff recommends that this topic should not be considered as part of the current Code update
as additional standards will to be developed to
ensure parking below residential structures is
appropriately integrated into the City. In the
interim there are means to achieve this goal, such
as with a density bonus additional height is
possible, and perhaps through the use of a PD
Overlay
Maximum building frontage – this requirement is difficult to apply on irregularly shaped lots. Additionally, it will create barriers to certain types of development (factory built/modular).
Table 17.16.030 LWC will delete this standard. Note ‐ also update the graphic on page III‐4
The proposed 2nd story step‐back could promote barriers to certain types of development (factory built/modular).
Section
17.16.040.A.2
A proposed addition to the development
standards allowing a front porch instead of a
second story stepback is recommended by staff
and should mitigate this concern. The existing
requirement for second story stepbacks on the
side and rear elevations will be deleted.
Greg Desmond
(email)
Greg Desmond
(email)
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 Is podium parking (parking on ground floor) allowed in the HR district?
Section
17.16.040.C.5.a
City staff recommends that this topic should not
be considered as part of the current Code update
as additional standards will to be developed to
ensure parking below residential structures is
appropriately integrated into the City. In the
interim there are means to achieve this goal, such
as with a density bonus additional height is
possible, and perhaps through the use of a PD
Overlay.
Include distilleries as a CUP in the eating and drinking establishment section.
Table 17.17.020 LWC will make this change
Why prohibit take‐out restaurants? Table 17.17.020
Footnote #12
City agrees that many restaurants have integrated
take out as part of their offerings. Update
Footnote 12 to delete "take out" and replace with
"drive‐through".
Why not allow live/work and/or multi‐family residential uses in the SC district?
Table 17.17.020 Residential uses are not consistent with the General Plan SC designation. No change
recommended.
Maximum building frontage – recommend letting other
development standards dictate this criterion.
Table 17.17.030 No change recommended.
Maximum building height – Recommend allowing additional height in the MU district to allow for podium (parking on ground floor).
Table 17.17.030 City staff recommends that this topic should not be considered as part of the current Code update
as additional standards will to be developed to
ensure parking below residential structures is
appropriately integrated into the City. And the
ground floor parking should be lined with retail
uses. In the interim there are means to achieve
this goal, such as with a density bonus additional
height is possible, and perhaps through the use of
a PD Overlay.
Recommend discussing the merits of the HWY 29 Specific Plan (drafted in 2005/under the 1993 General Plan) and whether it is still a relevant planning tool.
Table 17.17.030
Footnote #1
This document is referenced in the General Plan.
While the City recognizes this is an older
document, development projects within this
planning area are still subject to consistency. The
City Council would need to take a formal action to
withdraw the document or have it amended.
Highway 29 Specific Plan – see above note. Section
17.17.040.B
See above response
Allow restaurants or at least food trucks in the I District via the CUP process. This will alleviate some traffic on Main Street.
Table 17.18.020 Mobile food vendors are allowed in the updated code with a CUP in the I District.
Allow distilleries in the I District via the CUP process. Table 17.18.020 Comment noted and the updated code will include this and a new definition for distilleries.
Given the importance that St Helena plays in supporting regional agriculture and winemaking, this table should have a specific winery/wine industry section and/or an expanded agricultural section. Additionally, this section should include a more comprehensive list of such uses and such uses should be ‘permitted’ to the extent possible.
Table 17.18.020 Winery offices are noted as a use in the table, as well as large wineries in the I district. Please also
refer to Table 17.19.020 for more wine and winery
related uses listed (winery event center, small
winery, winery visitor center), tasting room.)
These items are standard public works conditions and building code requirements and are not necessary in the zoning code.
Section
17.18.040.D.8
+
17.18.040.D. 9
They are included as a reference ‐ more complete
and user‐friendly code.
Overall, I find that the agricultural zoning designation and allowable uses continue to benefit residential uses instead of benefitting or even allowing agriculture to be the highest/best use.
Chapter 17.19
Community
Agricultural and
Natural
Resource
Districts
Staff disagrees with this conclusion. Staff and LWC
recommend that the maximum amount of lot
coverage be reduced from 1 acre to 0.5 acre for
lots over 2 acres.
Greg Desmond
(email)
Greg Desmond
(email)
Greg Desmond
(email)
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
Is it possible to drop the ’20’ in regards to the A‐20 designation? Chapter 17.19 Community
Agricultural and
Natural
Resource
Districts
The Agricultural designation of the General Plan
notes that the minimum parcel sizes for new
parcels should be 20 to 40 acres. Also the
minimum lot size in Table 17.19.30 is 20 acres for
lots over 2 acres. For these reasons, it is not
recommended the '20' be deleted although it is
true many A‐20 lots are less than 20 acres.
It appears that most of the parcels in the A‐20 district are less than 20 acres has any thought gone into rezoning parcels less than 2.0 acres to LR?
Table 17.19.020
Footnote #2
Not at this time. Doing so would require a General
Plan Amendment which is beyond the scope of
this project.
The 0.5 acre maximum removal from agricultural use should apply to residential uses only and should _not_ apply to agricultural related uses such as small wineries, agricultural management offices, etc.
Table 17.19.030
Footnote #3
Comment noted. The intent is to maximize the
land available for agricultural uses and limit
building coverage, regardless of use. If the City
Council finds that 0.5 acre is a too restrictive
limitation, they may direct an alternative size
limitation.
Setbacks: Why do these districts measure to the centerline of the abutting street rather than the property line?
Table 17.19.030 Staff recommends that for the A‐20 district the way setbacks are measured should remain as, i.e.
from the centerline of the road. No change
recommended.
Confirm that residential driveways located w/in the WW District are required to be 2‐way.
Section
17.19.040.D.8
Yes, this has been confirmed by the St. Helena Fire
Department
Greg Desmond
(email)
Some of the city owned parcels used to accommodate employee housing. Specifically, the Lower Reservoir parcels (009‐310‐013) (022‐190‐002) (022‐190‐007) and the Bell Canyon Reservoir parcels (021‐420‐011) (021‐420‐012) (021‐420‐006) (021‐420‐019) (021‐420‐ 005) (021‐420‐020). It may make sense to include employee housing as a CUP on these parcels.
Table 17.20.020 Staff does not agree that requiring a CUP helps in any way as such a development would likely
require City Council approval. The City is aiming to
minimize the need for CUPs for housing given all
the streamlining policy at the state level.
It would be helpful to have staff/consultants identify any parcels that are proposed for any overlay districts that are not already formally entitled with such an overlay.
Chapter 17.21
Overlay Districts
No action needed at this time as it's up to future
property owners to decide if they want to apply.
Identifying any future overlay districts is outside
the scope of the current Zoning Code update.
The proposed HP overlay district concept needs work. The parcels shown as having a PD overlay on the draft zoning code map appear to be a some, but not all, of the parcels that are developed with structures listed on the city’s historic resource list. If there is an interest in developing historic district(s) they should include entire neighborhoods rather than parcel by parcel. In addition, this process should include formal outreach to all parcel owners within any potential district.
Section
17.21.040
The expanded HP Overlay is essentially the City's
local register of historic properties, it was not
intended to create local districts. Prior to the first
scheduled public hearing, staff will verify that all
parcels on the proposed local register are
indicated on the zoning map with the HP
designation. A notification letter was mailed to all
owners in the proposed HP Overlay with an
invitation to attend a community meeting on
November 30, 2022. There were seven attendees
at the meeting.
The downtown commercial core is already a nationally recognized historic district but is not identified as such in the existing or draft zoning code text/map.
Section
17.21.040
Not all of the buildings within the National
Register District are contributing buildings.
However, all the contributing buildings in the
National Register District are listed on the Local
Register and designated in the HP Overlay zone.
This is a very important component of the zoning
code as those properties are now included in the
preservation ordinance.
This section should clearly outline the fact that new construction, detached ADU’s on parcels with or without a primary residence require dedicated connections to the City of St Helena’s municipal waste and domestic water systems. As opposed to conversion of existing accessory buildings into an ADU which does not require dedicated water or sewer connections.
Section
17.22.030.E
An ADU is not allowed without a primary dwelling;
the ADU is accessory to the primary residence.
Also, please not this section has not been updated
to reflect the January adoption of the new ADU
ordinance. The updated ADU ordinance will be
included in the next draft.
Greg Desmond
(email)
Greg Desmond
(email)
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
Fire Sprinklers. This section should highlight the requirement for sprinklers if a proposed ADU is attached to an existing or proposed accessory building when the total proposed size is greater than 1,000 sf.
Section
17.22.030.E.2
This section will be replaced with the newly
adopted ADU code. City does not suggest any
other revisions at this time.
Septic Systems. The County of Napa’s Environmental Health Department regulates septic systems located within the City of St Helena’s city limits.
Section
17.22.030.E.5
Recommend a cross reference to Napa County
EHD be included.
Deed Restrictions + (8) Income Reporting ‐ confirm that all these requirements are consistent w/HCD mandates.
Section
17.22.030.E.7
The new code section was drafted by the City
Attorney in compliance with state law.
Maximum Size – this section contains a reference to FAR. Section
17.22.030.F.1.C
Good catch ‐ will be corrected.
Lot Coverage – this section references allowable ag removal of 1.0 acre.
Section
17.22.030.F.2.E
Unclear comment.
Conditional Use Permit – this section should include distilleries as a use.
Section
17.22.050.B.1
LWC will make this change
Location – where did the 1,000’ metric come from? Seems onerous. Section
17.22.050.D
Typical standard for separation from use with
alcohol. No change recommended.
Findings – recommend fewer and/or more objective findings. Section
17.22.050.F
City staff ‐ no change recommended.
These subsections apply to pre‐prohibition wineries ‐ not small wineries. Recommend creating a separate section for pre‐ prohibition wineries and removing these items from the small winery section.
Section
17.22.230.B.1.2
+
Section
17.22.230.D
The reestablishment of a pre‐prohibition winery is
going to be a very rare occurrence and at this time
it is not recommended to include a dedicated
section in the code.
Requiring a small winery to be subordinate/accessory to residential use on parcels designated as Agriculture in both the general plan and zoning code is not consistent with the purpose of this land use designation. Which, per the general plan, is to accommodate agricultural, winery, restricted single‐family residential and public/quasi‐public uses. Further, there are elements of the general plan which support the concept of wineries at any scale.
LU5.6 Permit wineries and other agricultural‐related industries to locate in the city if their location does not adversely impact surroundings, uses, or city services or the quality and character of the community.
ES1.2 Identify and expand economic sectors in which the city has competitive advantages, and capitalize on these strengths in order to diversify local economic activities and strengthen St. Helena’s role as an agriculturally‐based service center for the surrounding area.
I recommend that Section 17.22.230 be revised to be consistent w/the above and in a manner which allows small wineries to positively contribute to the agricultural character and economic sustainability of the community.
Section
17.22.230.E.2
Staff does not find the requirement for a small
winery to be subordinate to a residential use
inconsistent with the General Plan or zoning. A
small winery must be located on a minimum 5 acre
parcel; therefore the assumption is that the
residential structure is not the primary land use.
The purpose statement for small wineries
reaffirms consistency with the General Plan.
Applying accessory building development standards to small winery facilities is another headscratcher. A smarter approach would be to regulate the size of any proposed winery facility based on the size/zoning of the parcel adjacent uses, etc. With less restrictive standards for parcels zoned as A‐20.
Section
17.22.230.E.3
LWC will rephrase this section to be clearer. Note
that staff reports this issue has not come up in
many years at the City. Further, the accessory
structure standards are more forgiving so it is
recommended to leave this section as is because it
provides more flexibility. No change
recommended.
THE ABOVEMENTIONED SECTIONS BENEFIT EXISTING AND FUTURE RESIDENTAL USE ‐ NOT AGRICULTURE USE. Chapter 17.22
Specific to Uses
Please see above responses. Staff has determined
that the new zoning code balances agriculture,
residential and winery development.
The 1,000 gallon per acre metric should be verified by those in the Ag community.
Section
17.22.230.E.6
So far no other comments on this standard have
been received; presumed to be OK. No change is
recommended.
Recommend that the city revise its water use neutrality requirements to allow applicants to offset water usage through the conversion of existing landscaping/turf to more water efficient landscaping/turf alternatives.
Chapter 17.25
Landscaping
This is not a zoning code issue, and it may be
revisited by City staff and the City Council as a
separate issue.
Greg Desmond
(email)
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
Gravel surfaces and pavers. Prohibiting more than 30% of landscape areas from using gravel and pavers is not a good way to save water.
Section
17.25.050.B.6
Based on further research this standard is on par
with similar cities in the region. No change
recommended.
39 pages? Chapter 17.27
Signs
The sign standards were updated to ensure they
were content‐neutral based on the US Supreme
Court's decision in Reed v Town of Gilbert . This
required a substantial reorganization of the
contents. Many of the existing standards were
carried forward. The number of pages increased
because the standards for each sign type are
presented in simple tables with an illustration of
that sign type, and that takes up more space.
Ultimately, the sign standards are better organized
and presented to be easier for an applicant to read
and apply.
Recommend creation of a signage commission. Chapter 17.27 Signs
The City lacks the resources to manage a signage
commission. The new code is structured to be
more user‐friendly, includes better illustrations,
and defines sign standards in more detail in a
content‐neutral manner.
Greg Desmond
(email)
Recommend renaming this section “Affordable Housing
Concessions and Incentives” or including it as a subsection of Chapter 17.30 – Affordable Housing.
Chapter 17.29
Density Bonus
No change recommended
Greg Desmond
(email)
Not Historic – needs clarification. Please see 17.21.040. Section
17.31.050
No change is recommended. This language for
"Not Historic" criteria was part of the SB 9
legislation and incorporated into the City's SB 9
ordinance, Section 17.31.050.
Agriculture is too narrowly defined. Recommend looking at Napa County’s definition of agriculture.
Chapter 17.32
Definition of
Terms
LWC recommends that the proposed definition of
agriculture is appropriate for the City. Including
standards in the definitions, e.g. the Napa County
definition, is not a best practice. No change
recommended, except that a new definition for
"active agricultural use" is recommended.
Include definition for winery and for distillery. Chapter 17.32 Definition of
Terms
Winery is defined in the Uses chapter.
LWC will add a definition for "distillery"
The general plan update process proposed (12) land use ‘Change Areas’. Change Area #7 proposes to downzone several parcels along the south side of Spring Street between St James Place and North Crane Avenue from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The justification for this proposed change is to ‘accurately reflect existing densities’ of those parcels. This action is inconsistent with the following general plan polices:
LU1.4 In order to minimize and postpone the need for expansion of the Urban Limit Line, encourage infill development within currently developed areas.
LU2.5 Encourage the development of higher density housing in areas near the center of the city and close to recreation and services, such as transit, retail, and public facilities.
I strongly recommend that these parcels retain their current High Density Residential zoning designation.
Zoning Map Change area number 7 as noted on Figure 2.8 of the General Plan was redesignated to Medium
Density as part of the adopted 2019 General Plan.
As part of this zoning update, the new zoning map
changes reflect those adopted General Plan map
changes. No change recommended.
The parcels shown as having an Historic Preservation (HP) overlay do not represent an accurate representation of parcels with structures listed on the city’s historic resource list. Is this intentional?
Zoning Map Staff will verify that all the properties on the proposed Local Register list are noted on the HP
Overlay map.
There are no parcels shown with a Flood Plain (FP) overlay. Is this correct?
Zoning Map This overlay was removed from the proposed
zoning map and a note added to refer to the
General Plan Figure 9.1 for the Floodplain
boundaries.
Greg Desmond
(email)
Greg Desmond
(email)
Greg Desmond
(email)
Agenda Item #8.1.
5 B C DE F
Name of
commenter
Comment Chapter/
Section/ Page
Response/Action Notes
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 The city‐owned parcel (009‐401‐020) on Crinella Drive should be shown as PQP or as P.
Zoning Map The property is designated MR in the General Plan but it should have been changed with the 2019
new General Plan. The City agrees that the parcel
should be PQP or P. It will be added to the list of
future General Plan and Zoning Map changes.
The city‐owned parcel (009‐723‐001) east of Starr Avenue along Sulphur Creek is not shown as a park.
Zoning Map Staff believes this is referring to parcel 009‐723‐ 011 which is west of Starr Ave. This parcel is also
MR in the General Plan. City staff cannot confirm
for certain, but this parcel may have development
potential and should likely remain MR until we can
determine that.
The city‐owned passive park (009‐721‐014) south of Meadow Creek Circle and north of Sulphur Creek is not shown as a park.
Zoning Map Similar response as above, the property is
designated MR in the General Plan. We can't
confirm for certain but this parcel may have
development potential and should likely remain
MR until we can determine that.
Parcel 009‐770‐005 is vacant and located along Sulphur Creek to the east of Jacob Meily Park. This parcel should be
acquired/dedicated as a park as it provides ped/bike connectivity to Jacob Meily Park via Chiles Avenue and Paulson Court. Staff should confirm that this parcel was not meant to be deeded to the city as a condition of approval for the Signorelli subdivision.
Zoning Map This property is also designated as MR in the General Plan. It is also currently under private
ownership. Researching the Signorelli Subdivision
will take time and potential legal action before a
General Plan Amendment can proceed.
The linear ped/bike connector between the terminus of Adams Street and Hunt Avenue should be shown as a park – it is currently shown as PQP.
Zoning Map This small strip of land also appears to be MR in the General Plan. That said, it has no development
potential, nor is it functional as a park. Staff finds
that PQP designation is probably fine.
Recommend including the Bell Canyon Reservoir and associated parcels as an inset on the zoning map.
Zoning Map As part of a future General Plan Amendment, the City will create a new base map that shows the
Bell Canyon Reservoir and will update the zoning
map at that time.
Agenda Item #8.1.
61236.02000\40893206.1
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS LEGAL BASIS SUMMARY
State law now prohibits the city from adopting any subjective standard for housing projects.
Housing Crisis Act (HCA) (Gov Code 66300)
(b) (1) … with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, [a city] shall not enact a development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of the following effects:
* * *
(C) Imposing or enforcing design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, that are not objective design standards.
(2) Any development policy, standard, or condition enacted on or after the effective date of this section that does not comply with this section shall be deemed void.
The HCA defines objective design standard:
(a) (7) “Objective design standard” means a design standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application.
And increasingly, only objective standards are relevant for many, if not most, housing approvals.
E.g.,
Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Gov Code 65589.5)
Subd. (f) only authorizes cities to require a housing development project to “comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies.” And even those have to yield “to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site” by the general plan.
The HAA similarly defines “objective” in subd. (h)(8) — “‘objective’ means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference Agenda Item #8.1.
61236.02000\40893206.1
to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official” Subd. (j)(2)(A) applies to all housing development projects, whether affordable or market rate, and only requires compliance “with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards,” that are “in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete” in order for the project to get special protection from local regulation.
That protection includes a statutory prohibition on both • denying the project based on any subjective standard and • conditioning approval of the project based on a subjective standard if the condition requires the project to “be developed at a lower density” unless the city makes findings about unavoidable specific adverse impacts on public health and safety (note, not welfare) … and supporting those findings with evidence in the record.
The HAA requires cities to focus on objective standards in the general plan in particular:
(j)(4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.
Other housing laws also narrow the city’s review to just objective standards. As another example: SB 35 (Gov Code 65913.4)
(a)(5) Streamlined, ministerial approval of qualified affordable MF developments based only on “objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards” that are “in effect at the time that the development is submitted to the [city]”
and
“objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 1
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 Ddistricts. Second stories, in 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, unless the front elevation has a porch a minimum of 8 feet deep that extends 80 percent or more of the width of the front elevation, excluding a garage.
3. Building Orientation.
a. Building entrances must be oriented toward public rights-of-way or internal walkways.
b. Windows, balconiesy, and decks placement must be a placed minimum of 12 horizontal feet measured horizontally from the windows areas of existing facing residences (on-site or off-site).
4. Building Transparency. At least 20 percent of the area of each street-facing facade of a residential building must consist of windows, doors, or other openings. No wall that faces a sidewalk, pedestrian walkway, or publicly accessible outdoor space may run in a continuous plane of more than 10 feet without a window, door, or other opening. In the MR district, the front door of any primary single-family unit must be visible to the public streetWall Planes. Building offsets, roof overhangs, bay windows, the use of a variety of materials, and other features as determined by the Community Development Director, shall be used to reduce building massing. The following requirements apply:
a. Unbroken wall planes of 10 feet or more in width are prohibited on walls facing a sidewalk, pedestrian walkway, or publicly accessible outdoor space. b. Any wall plane larger than 10 feet in width shall incorporate windows, doors, or other openings; be articulated (i.e. break up the wall plane); or incorporate design features such as bay windows, balconies or verandas, or a change in material or color; and
c. On corner lots, elevations oriented towards both street frontages shall include the same architectural design character on each elevation. d. In the MR district, the front door of any primary single-family unit must be visible to the public street.
4. .
Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 2
Figure 17.16.040.A: Façade TransparencyWall Planes
5. Roofline and Roof Design.
a. Roofs must be either flat or have a pitch of no less than 5:12. b. Ground floor street-facing plate height must not exceed 12 feet on the front one-third of the building.
c. Second story plate height must not exceed 20 feet.
Figure 17.16.040.B: First and Second Story Plate Height d. The minimum dimension (depth, length, or length at ridge) for any shingle roof form visible from the public right-of-way is six feet.
6.5. Exterior Building Materials and Colors.
a. Building materials that support and enhance the architectural vernacular of the City must be used in all new developments. There are many materials that may be used to achieve this goal, including plaster or stucco, brick, native Vinyl siding, aluminum siding,or artificial stone finishes, form board concrete finishes, board and batten siding, and horizontal siding (except as provided in subsection 5.a.plywood (including particle board and oriented strand board), corrugated metal, and common concrete block are prohibited.
Max. 20’
Second Floor
Plate Height
Commented [R1]: Replace with updated illustration
showing the standards in 17.16.040.A.4.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 3
b. Bright colors must only be used for trim or for accentsIn addition, corrugated metal may be used as a roof material in all zones except the HP Overlay district, and as a siding material in the A-20, MR, and HR districts. c. Specifically prohibited materials include unplastered, unpainted, or painted concrete block and vinyl or aluminum siding.
c.d. The A consistent palette of materials and colors on a building must be applied used to on all sides of the buildings.
7.6. Landscaping. The entire front and street side required setbacks, exclusive of permitted driveways, walkways, or parking areas, must be landscaped with drought tolerant plant materials in compliance with . See Section Chapter 17.25, Landscaping.
8.7. Site Circulation and Access.
a. A system of pedestrian walkways must connect the primary entryways of all on-site buildings, all on-site automobile and bicycle parking areas, to any onsite open space areas or pedestrian amenities, to all shared trash enclosure areas, and to the public sidewalk on the perimeter street frontage. b. Where a required walkway crosses parking areas or loading areas, it must be clearly identifiable with a raised crosswalk, a different paving material, or similar method.
c. New streets or drive aisles must form a continuous pedestrian network from the primary right-of-way and within the development.
d. Walkways must be a minimum of four feet wide, must be hard-surfaced, and paved with concrete, stone, tile, brick, or comparable material. e. The minimum distance from the back of any drive aisle or walkway interior to a site must be 10 feet to the garage door and five feet to any living area or covered porch.
Figure 17.16.040.BC: Distance to Interior Drive Aisle or Walkway Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 4
f. Automobile and pedestrian access points into multi-family residential developments must not be gated or closed off to the public. g. Where individual driveways are accessed by a private or shared drive, a maximum of one driveway curb cut is allowed for each 50 feet of perimeter street frontage.
9.8. Parking Frontage. The total width of parking areas visible from the street, including open parking, carports, and garages, but excluding parking located behind buildings, must not exceed 30 percent of any street frontage. This limitation does not apply to or rowhouses or frontages along alleys.
Figure 17.16.040.CD: Parking Frontage
10.9. 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).
11.10. Required Play Areas. Single-family and multi-family developments that include 15 or more dwelling units must include at least one play area for children. The play area must:
a. Have a minimum dimension of 15 feet in any direction and a minimum area of 600 square feet.
b. Contain play equipment, including equipment designed for children aged five years and younger.
c. Be visible from multiple dwelling units within the project. d. Be protected from any adjacent streets or parking lots with a fence or other barrier at least four feet in height.
e. Include safe material under play equipment that provides protection from falls.
f. The play area requirement does not apply to any development that is agerestricted to senior citizens or located within 300 feet of a public park.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 5
Figure 17.16.040.DE: Required Play Area
12. Sustainability and Energy Efficiency.
a. All development must be consistent with the standards of the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) applicable mandatory measures. b. All new construction must incorporate landscaping and fenestration to passively cool the building; energy-efficient HVAC; and energy efficient lighting. c. All energy generation devices must blend in with the building color. d. All on-site landscaping must be drought-resistant and require minimal irrigation.
B. Design Standards Specific to Small Lot Development. In addition to the standards listed in subsection 17.16.040.A, small lot development is subject to the standards below.
1. Small Lot Size. Detached or attached single-unit residential development is permitted on lots less than the minimum lot size established for zoning districts allowing singlefamily or multi-family residential uses, in accordance with Table 17.16.030:
Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts.
2. Small Lot Configurations. Small lot development types may include but are not limited to drive courts or cottage courts abutting a local roadway. Figures 17.16.040.F and
17.16.040.G and show potential configurations of small lot development within a perimeter lot line. Interior lot line placement varies by development and is not regulated by this Title.
Figure 17.16.040.EF: Cottage Court with Alley Access (Example Configuration) Commented [R2]: On each of these illustrations where there is a walkway drawn parallel to the
sidewalk, the walkway will be removed as it is
unnecessary (see the red outlined rectangle on this
illustration)
Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 6
Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 7
Figure 17.16.040.FG: Cottage Court with Perimeter Drive Aisle and Detached or Attached Garages (Example Configuration)
3. Small Lot Perimeter Setbacks. The minimum setbacks for the primary structures from the perimeter property lines of small lot single unit development are the same as the required setbacks of the underlying zoning district.
4. Small Lot Entrances.
a. The primary entry of units located in the interior of the development must be oriented towards and visible from a pedestrian pathway that is connected to a public right-of-way or private street.
b. Each unit must have a primary covered or recessed entry that is generally oriented to the common central open space.
c. The primary entry of units located along the right-of-way must be oriented toward the right-of-way.
d. A minimum 12-foot separation is required between the primary entryway of a unit and the adjacent building wall of a neighboring unit. e. Each primary entrance must incorporate a front porch that provides a minimum five-foot clear depth and that faces either the common open space or abutting right-of-way.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 8
Figure 17.16.040.GH: Small Lot Entrance Orientation Adjacent to Right-of-Way
5. Small Lot Interior Setbacks for Detached Units. The interior building separation for detached units is a minimum 10 feet.
Figure 17.16.040.HI: Small Lot Building Separation for Detached Units
6. Small Lot Parking and Access.
a. Garages may not be oriented to face perimeter streets. b. Required parking must be provided on each small lot, within a common parking area, or in a combination of the two.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 9
c. Parking must be designed and located such that it is not be visible from public rights-of-way.
7. Small Lot Landscaping.
a. A minimum 25 percent of the total site area must be landscapedLandscaping with drought tolerant plant materials must be provided consistent with the requirements of Chapter 17.25, Landscaping.
b. Lots with units facing a common open space must have at least five feet of landscaping between the entrance and any interior walkway.
8. Small Lot Private Open Space.
a. MA minimum of 1200 square feet of ground-level private open space must be provided for each small lot unit. This space may take the form of a porch, deck, patio, or garden.
b. The minimum allowed dimensions for required private open space is six feet.
C. Design Standards Specific to Multi-Family Development. In addition to the standards listed in subsection 17.16.040.A, multi-family development is subject to the standards below.
1. Design.
a. The roof line on the longest at each building elevations shall include a vertical demonstrate an offset of at least 18 inches for each unit or for each pair of one to three units exposed on that elevation.
Figure 17.16.040.IJ: Roofline, Attached Single Unit and Multi-Unit Development b. Building height must vary such that the building has at least one change in height of at least six feet. This may be achieved through changes in pitch, plane, orientation, or a change in the number of stories. c.b. Exterior building walls must vary in depth through a pattern of offsets, recesses, or projections a minimum of two feet every 25 horizontal feet.
Patterns may be established through changes in plane, balconies, bay windows, dormers, or other façade features.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 10
Figure 17.16.040.JK: Façade Articulation
d.c. All visible building facades shall incorporate details, such as window and door trim, window recesses, cornices, changes in materials, or other design elements. Each side of a building that is visible from a public right-of-way shall be designed with a complementary consistent level of detailing and quality of materials.
e.d. A minimum of two features such as balconies, cantilevers, dormers, bay windows, awnings, patios, individualized entries, and accent materials shall be incorporated into each project building.
f.e. At least two materials shall be used on any building frontage, in addition to glazing and railings. Any one material must comprise at least 20 percent of the building frontage.
g.f. Buildings over two stories must provide a ground floor elevation that is distinguished from the upper stories through a material or color change along at least 75 percent of building façades facing rights-of-way or public open space.
h.g. Dwelling units facing common open space areas must include a minimum of two one windows providing a direct view onto the common area. i. A unified palette of materials with at least two complementary colors shall be used on all sides of buildings.
j.h. Where a new multi-family development is built adjacent to existing lowerscaled residential development, the façade opposite the existing lower-scaled residential development shall incorporate at least one full-height recess a minimum two feet in depth.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 11
Figure 17.16.040.KL: Full-Height recesses, Attached Single Unit and Multi-Unit Development k.i. For buildings 12 feet or less apart, Wwindows, balconies, and other private open spaces shall be offset to avoid direct sightlines into and from neighboring properties.
Figure 17.16.040.LM: Window and Balcony Placement, Attached Single Unit and Multi-Unit Development
l.j. Each unit shall have at least 200 cubic feet of enclosed, weather-proofed, and lockable private storage space with a minimum horizontal dimension of four feet. The required private storage space may be located within a building or outside of the building, and may be used for bicycle parking.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 12
m.k. Affordable units and market rate units in the same development shall be constructed of the same or similar exterior materials and details such that the units are not distinguishable.
2. Attached Rowhouse Design.
a. Attached rowhouse development may be configured with vehicular access provided via an on-site drive aisle, from an abutting alley, or from the primary building frontage.
b. Blocks of attached rowhouses must be a minimum of three units and a maximum of eight units.
c. For attached rowhouse units, a minimum separation of 12 feet must be provided between blocks of units.
Figure 17.16.040.MN: Separation at End of Row
3. Entry Design.
a. Shared entrances to multi-family developments must be visible from the rightof-way or shared walkways. Direct pedestrian access must be provided between the public sidewalk and all shared entrances.
b. Individual ground floor entrances to units within a multi-family development must:
i. Be visible and directly accessible form the right-of-way or a shared pathway; and
ii. Incorporate usable outdoors areas such as patios, porches, stoops, terraces, or forecourts.
c. Exterior entrances to units in multi-family developments may be either individual or shared. Exterior entrances to individual units on upper floors are permitted; however, shared exterior access corridors located above the Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 13
ground floor and visible from the street may provide access to a maximum of three four units.
d. Duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes abutting any LR or MR district single-family neighborhoods shall include individual front doors and interior stairs (when stairs are needed).
e. Exterior entrances serving multiple units must have a roofed projection or recess with a minimum depth of five feet and a minimum horizontal area of 60 square feet.
Figure 17.16.040.NO: Entrances Serving Multiple Units
f. Exterior entrances serving a single unit must have a roofed projection or recess with a minimum depth of at least five feet and a minimum horizontal area of at least 25 feet.
4. Common Outdoor Recreation Space. Common open space must meet the following requirements:
a. Use. Common outdoor recreation space must be available for passive and active outdoor recreational purposes for the enjoyment of all residents of each project. Outdoor recreation space types include but is not limited to picnic areas, tot lots, sports courts, swimming pools, and community gardens. b. Slope. The slope of the common outdoor recreational space must not exceed a slope of 10 percent and must be easily accessible for all residents. c. VisibilityAccessibility. Common outdoor recreation spaces must be visible from the primary living spaces of a minimum of 50 percent ofall units and be accessible visible and be to all the residents of the project for which the space is provided.
d. Precluded Areas. Common outdoor recreation space must not include driveways, public or private streets, or utility easements where the ground surface may not be appropriate for recreational space.
5. Parking.
a. Location for All Multi-Family Residential. Off-street parking serving multi-family residential development must be located in one of the following facilities:
Agenda Item #8.1.
Track Changes DRAFT – Public Hearing Draft May 10, 2023 LWC_St. Helena Code_17.16.040_PHD_041723 Page 14
i. Surface parking lots, garages, or carports located to the side or rear of residential buildings in relation to adjacent streets. If a site fronts on two or more streets, this standard applies to the front of the lot. ii. Garages with side entries, in which the face of the garage door is generally perpendicular to the street.
iii. Attached individually secured garages.
b. Rowhouse Garages Frontage. Rowhouse garages with doors that face the street must be recessed from the primary façade and may not occupy more than 50 percent of the width of any street-facing building façade.
Figure 17.16.040.OP: Rowhouses Garages
6. Universal Design. For residential projects with at least 10 dwelling units, 10 percent of the units must adhere to the following principles of Universal Design:
a. At least one entrance without steps and a flat threshold. b. Living space on one floor or stair landings big enough to accept lifts. c. Wide interior doors (32-inch clear, typically provided with 36-inch door), hallways, and alcoves with 60 by 60-inch turning space at doors, in kitchens, and dead ends.
d. A 30 by 48-inch clear space at appliances and fixtures in bathrooms and kitchens.
Agenda Item #8.1.
St. Helena Built Form Examples
Two Stories that are compatible with proposed Objective Design Standards Second story step back achieved with front porch
Agenda Item #8.1.
Agenda Item #8.1.
Agenda Item #8.1.
WALKER
WARNER
City of St. Helena
Planning Department
c/o Maya DeRosa
1572 RailroadAve.
St. Helena, CA94574
(707) 968-2659
December 29, 2022
Re: 855 Pratt Avenue
APN: 009-030-063-000
Dear Ms. DeRosa,
Myclients, the property owners, recently acquired the referencedproperty and will be pursuing various permits to enhance the property including preservation of the agricultural uses while enriching the architecturallandscape of the property. Designating the property within the HP Overlay zoning district substantially limits the architectural design palette thereby limiting optionsforthe 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 Overlayzoning district.
The proposal to include the property within the HP Overlay zoning district has created nervousness. The criteria forthe 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 ofthe HP Overlayshould it be determined not locallysignificant. Furthermore, the HP Overlay district provides no incentive for preservation, which will limit necessary improvements to propertiesthat are unsafe.
Should the city elect not to remove the property from the proposed HP Overlay zoning district, I request that the city provide clear incentivesto the owners. The HP Overlay is an opportunity to provide special accommodations and special forms of zoning relief that may provide additional preservation incentives to owners of these resources. For example, LosGatos allows existing uses not otherwise permitted in the underlying zoning districts to continue in its Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay Zones. In this case, the city should allow an increase in lot coverage, reduce setbacks, provide opportunity for Mills Act contracts, and provide opportunity for additional housing units (e.g., two accessory dwelling units or multifamily uses) or non-residentialuses to offset the cost of preservation. Absent incentives, the property should be removed from the HP Overlay zoning district. 353 Folsom Street
San Francisco, California 94105
415.318.8900
www.walkerwarner.com
Agenda Item #8.1.
Re: 855 Pratt Avenue
APN: O09-030-063-000
We appreciate the City's reconsideration and removal of the property from within the proposed HP Overlay zoning district or a substantial revision to the draft HP district to provide incentives.
Best rega ds,
Clark Sather
415.318.8910 direct
[email protected]
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]
December 30, 2022
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”) Dear Ms. DeRosa,
This firm represents the Owner of the above reference Property and submits this comment letter on the Owner’s behalf.
The City of Saint Helena (the “City”) is proposing to amend its municipal code to add a Historic Preservation Overlay district with the goal of protecting significant historical resources within the City. The proposed ordinance is neither necessary to achieve that goal nor supported by sufficient evidence and analysis. The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) already provides significant protection for historic resources as do various sections of the City’s municipal code. There is no reasonable justification for imposing an additional overlay district on certain property owners.
The proposed district and designated properties rely primarily on an inventory and reconnaissance survey conducted by Page and Turnbull Architects in 2006. The report recognizes that further study of the individual properties is necessary, In order to properly consider a structure to be a significant historic resource and thereby justify the punitive standards set forth in the proposed ordinance, a complete historic resource evaluation would need to be conducted for each property.
At the very least, the ordinance must provide property owners the chance to establish that a building or structure does NOT meet the necessary criteria. This is particularly so, 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.
Agenda Item #8.1.
MAYA DEROSA
December 30, 2022
The City’s existing code Section 17.05.040 includes provisions that would allow for demolition of a potential historic resource. The proposed ordinance is impermissibly vague in that it does not specify whether properties placed within the district might still be eligible for demolition under these existing provisions. As you are aware, CEQA, its regulations and relevant case law, all provide that even a significant historic resource can be demolished, removed and/or relocated if appropriate findings can be made. The City’s proposed ordinance cannot foreclose those possibilities and should follow governing state law on the topic.
The proposed ordinance, specifically Chapter 17.21.040, results in a permanent and significant diminution in property value because Chapter 17.21.040 provides no opportunity to consider demolition of structure(s) on the property. The draft code provides no opportunity to remove or delete the zoning overlay designation should the property and/or the structures be found not to possess any historical significance.
The proposed ordinance also completely ignores structures that were either missed by the 2006 survey or those that may since or at some point in the future, become historically significant.
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. This proposed ordinance does just the opposite. For example, Section
17.21.040.E. refers to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and then inexplicably and irreconcilably states that the general principles shall be “mandatory” for all properties within the overlay district. These guidelines, though, are designed only for rehabilitation which is defined as the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. They would have no applicability, for example, to new construction which is also addressed in the proposed ordinance. In addition, there are merely “principles” not regulations or standards that can readily be applied to a development application.
The City’s proposed historic preservation overlay district imposes too steep a penalty on property owners because it includes no mechanism to remove a property from the district and no opportunity for a property owner to establish that his or her property does not in fact qualify as a significant resource. It also reaches well beyond potential historic resources to new structures, establishing arbitrary design standards that do not bear any reasonable relationship to historic preservation. The proposal also fails to consider that the 2006 survey did not amount to an appropriate historic resource evaluation.
Agenda Item #8.1.
MAYA DEROSA
December 30, 2022
We 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.
Alexander Viñedo LLC
George Giannos, Agent
180 Steuart Street #192625
San Francisco, CA 94105
[email protected]
(203) 273-9853
December 30, 2022 Via Email
Maya DeRosa, Director
Planning and Building Department
1572 Railroad Avenue, St. Helena, CA 94574
[email protected]
Re: Removal of Proposed HP Overlay
855 Pratt Avenue, St Helena
APN 009-030-063-000
Dear Ms. DeRosa,
I am the appointed representative of Alexander Viñedo LLC, the owner (the “Owner”) of the property located at 855 Pratt Avenue (“the Property”). Owner recently acquired the property, hoping to bring new life to the property and to become more engaged in the community processes over time. It was recently brought to our attention that the city is proposing to include the property in a Historic Preservation HP overlay zoning district. We respectfully request that this action not occur, and that the property not be included in the HP Overlay.
We believe historic preservation is a good idea, especially for the downtown and the surrounding historic districts. However, the application of the HP Overlay on the property located at 855 Pratt Avenue would obstruct reasonable improvements to the Property preventing my client from bettering the Property with safe residential structures and environmentally-friendly improvements, which we believe would be of benefit to the community. The Property and its structures have marginal historical value, and the stringent regulations would hinder necessary improvements to the Property, which would in turn limit the ability of the city to realize an increase in property tax values.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
George Giannos
Alexander Viñedo LLC
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
December 29, 2022
City of St. Helena
Planning Department
c/o Maya DeRosa
1572 Railroad Ave.
St. Helena, CA 94574
(707) 968-2659
Re: 855 Pratt Avenue, APN 009-030-063-000
HP Overlay Zoning District
Dear Ms. DeRosa,
I am writing this letter on behalf of my clients, the owners, who recently acquired the property located at 855 Pratt Avenue. On behalf of my client, I object to the proposed designation of the property within the proposed HP Overlay zoning district.
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. 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.
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.
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.
We respectfully request that the property located at 855 Pratt Avenue not be included in the HP Overlay zoning district.
Sincerely,
Erik Lundquist, AICP
Agenda Item #8.1.
1 City Master Responses to 855 Pratt Comment Letters
Response to Letter From SSL Law , Christine Wade
1. The proposed ordinance is neither necessary to achieve that goal nor supported by sufficient evidence and analysis. The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) already provides significant protection for historic resources as do various sections of the City’s municipal code. There is no reasonable justification for imposing an additional overlay district on certain property owners.
Response: The City currently has an adopted Historic Preservation Overlay District. Currently, very few properties are designated with this overlay and given the number of eligible resources in the City, most are vulnerable to alterations and demolition. While the City is in agreement that CEQA offers protections to those resources that meet the criteria of a historic resource, the proposed HP Overlay is implementing a number of important implementation actions from the 2019 General Plan, noted below:
HR1.A Adopt a historic preservation ordinance to implement the policies recommended in the Historic Resources Element.
HR1.B Adopt design review guidelines and/or form-based codes, standards and criteria for the alteration or rehabilitation of historic properties. The adoption of design review guidelines and/or form-based codes can assist City staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council when reviewing permit requests and provide long-term regulatory consistency.
HR1.C Adopt design review guidelines and/or form-based codes that require new development in or adjacent to historic areas or buildings to be compatible in design and character with existing historic buildings
2. In order to properly consider a structure to be a significant historic resource and thereby justify the punitive standards set forth in the proposed ordinance, a complete historic resource evaluation would need to be conducted for each property.
Response: The 2019 General Plan Appendix A identified a historic resources list of properties which were previously surveyed. This list was used as a basis for the expanded proposed HP Overlay, however the City did review all properties on this list for building permit activity since 2006. All properties that underwent demolition or significant change where the historic features were removed were removed from the proposed HP Overlay.
3. The proposed ordinance is impermissibly vague in that it does not specify whether properties placed within the district might still be eligible for demolition under these existing provisions.
Agenda Item #8.1.
2 Response: Regulations pertaining to historic and non-historic buildings are included in a separate section of the draft code (Part II). Please see 17.05.040 Historic Demolition Permit for the process that includes properties within the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone.
4. The proposed ordinance, specifically Chapter 17.21.040, results in a permanent and significant diminution in property value because Chapter 17.21.040 provides no opportunity to consider demolition of structure(s) on the property.
Response: Please see response 3 above.
5. The draft code provides no opportunity to remove or delete the zoning overlay designation should the property and/or the structures be found not to possess any historical significance.
Response: Please refer to Chapter 17.10 Historic Designation, in the proposed draft zoning code.
Specifically Section 17.10.030 provides for a process to rescind a historic resource designation.
6. The proposed ordinance also completely ignores structures that were either missed by the 2006 survey or those that may since or at some point in the future, become historically significant.
Response: The City recognizes that there remain many eligible structure and potentially eligible historic districts that are not included in the currently proposed Historic Preservation Overlay.
The City would need to budget and prioritize completing a citywide historic survey prior to expanding the currently proposed overlay.
7. 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.
Response: Respectfully, the City disagrees. Collectively in Sections 17. 05. 040, 17.10 and
17.21.040, are clear regulations that address Historic Demolition Permit, Historic Designation and the Historic Preservation Overlay zone, respectively.
8. For example, Section 17.21.040.E. refers to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and then inexplicably and irreconcilably states that the general principles shall be “mandatory” for all properties within the overlay district. These guidelines, though, are designed only for rehabilitation which is defined as the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. They would have no applicability, for example, to new construction which is also addressed in the proposed ordinance.
Response: The proposed ordinance clearly separates the Secretary of Interior Standards in
17.21.040 ( E) from the standards for new construction in 17. 21.040 (F).
Agenda Item #8.1.
3 9. The City’s proposed historic preservation overlay district imposes too steep a penalty on property owners because it includes no mechanism to remove a property from the district and no opportunity for a property owner to establish that his or her property does not in fact qualify as a significant resource.
Response: Please refer to response 5 above.
10. It also reaches well beyond potential historic resources to new structures, establishing arbitrary design standards that do not bear any reasonable relationship to historic preservation.
Response: The proposed ordinance includes regulations for new structures which was one of the implementation goals of the General Plan as noted below:
HR1.C Adopt design review guidelines and/or form-based codes that require new development in or adjacent to historic areas or buildings to be compatible in design and character with existing historic buildings
Response to Letter from Alexander Vinedo, LLC, George Giannos
11. We believe historic preservation is a good idea, especially for the downtown and the surrounding historic districts. However, the application of the HP Overlay on the property located at 855 Pratt Avenue would obstruct reasonable improvements to the Property preventing my client from bettering the Property with safe residential structures and environmentally-friendly improvements, which we believe would be of benefit to the community.
Response: The intent of the proposed Historic Preservation Overlay zone is not to prevent improvements and additions to existing historic structures but to provide design standards to ensure that exterior changes respect the important architectural features of a historic resource.
Staff encourages the property owner to submit their proposal for a courtesy review and feedback.
12. The Property and its structures have marginal historical value, and the stringent regulations would hinder necessary improvements to the Property, which would in turn limit the ability of the city to realize an increase in property tax values.
Response: The 2006 survey included specific references to the significance of the property, notably for its connection to the residential development of St. Helena in the late nineteenth century and architectural features which are noted below. Please also refer to response 11.
Agenda Item #8.1.