St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-15
is considered low, since their racial dissimilarity index scores are below 40 for 2019. In Napa County, there has been an increase in segregation across all measured racial/ethnic groups between 2010 and 2019.

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

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

3.2 Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities include those with a physical or mental impairment including hearing, vision, mobility, cognitive function. For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity include access to accessible housing and housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s needs as required under federal civil rights law, including equitably provided disability-related services that an individual needs to live in such housing. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have actual housing choice without the presence of housing units with these accessibility features.70
High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to both physical needs and economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureau-designated poverty line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.71 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit. 70 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 71 The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics. 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-16

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-17
Figure 1 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-18
Figure 2 Percent of Total Non-White Population (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-19
Figure 3 Predominant Populations (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-20
Figure 4 Percent of Population with a Disability (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-21

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-22
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-23
Figure 6 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-24
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-25

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-26
Figure 7 shows the percentage of children in married couple households in Napa County. The less urban areas of the county have higher concentrations of children residing in married couple households while the urban areas have a lower percentage of children residing in married couple households. In most areas of the county the majority of children live in married couple households, however the northern half of the county generally has a higher percentage of children living in married couple households compared to the southern half.

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-27
Table 5 Household Type and Tenure (St. Helena)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table S2501 Occupancy Characteristics, 2015-2019 Estimates.

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

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

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

Figure 13 provides estimates regarding the percent of the adult population living with a spouse in St.

Helena. Throughout the city, 40 to 60 percent of adults are living with a spouse. Figure 14 shows the Household Type Owner-Occupied
Percent of Total
Owner-Occupied
RenterOccupiedPercent of Total
Renter-Occupied
Family
Households 920 58 586 53
Married couple family 735 46 408 37
Male householder, no
spouse present 29 2 63 6
Female householder, no
spouse present 156 10 115 10
Non-family
households 670 42 526 47
Living Alone 644 41 395 36
Not Living Alone 26 2 131 12
Total Households 1,590 1,112
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-28
percentage of the adult population living alone in St. Helena. In the western half of the city, 20 to 40 percent of adults live alone while in the eastern half of the city less than 20 percent of adults live alone.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-29
Figure 7 Children in Married-Couple Households (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-30
Figure 8 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-31
Figure 9 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-32
Figure 10 Population of Adults Living Alone (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-33
Figure 11 Children in Married-Couple Households (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-34
Figure 12 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-35
Figure 13 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-36
Figure 14 Population of Adults Living Alone (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-37
Overall, the northwest portion of the city has a higher proportion of children living in female single-parent households and a higher proportion of adults living alone compared to the southeast portion of the city.

The percentages of children living in married couple households and adults living in with a spouse/partner are high throughout the city.

3.4 Household Income
Household income is directly related to the ability to afford housing. Higher income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. However, as household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases. To achieve fair housing objectives, people in low-income households must have actual choice in housing opportunities – that is, they are able to locate units that are affordable and well maintained in all parts of a jurisdiction and region.

Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the area median income).

3.4.1 Regional Trends
The median household income of Napa County is $88,596. LMI areas are concentrated in the more urbanized areas of the county, including the City of Napa, St. Helena, and Calistoga. Rural areas of the county tend to have higher income households. Figure 15 shows the median household income for cities within Napa County.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-38
Figure 15 Median Household Income (2015-2019)
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey American Community Survey, 2015-2019.

Figure 16 shows median household income by block group using 2015-2019 ACS estimates. Block groups with the lowest median income are the eastern area of St. Helena, the area south of Yountville, and areas within the City of Napa.

LMI populations by census tract for Napa County are displayed in Figure 17. Census tracts within Cities of Napa, St. Helena, and Calistoga have the highest percentages of populations with low to moderate income.

These areas are the same areas with the highest percentages of non-White population.

3.4.2 Local Trends
Household incomes in St. Helena tend to be higher than the region as a whole, with a median income of $90,031 compared to the median household income of Napa County ($88,596). St. Helena has a higher median income than many of the surrounding cities, including the cities of Napa, Yountville, and Calistoga, as shown in Figure 15.

Figure 18 provides an overview of median household income by block group in the city. The census blocks with the lowest median income are located on the northeast and east side of St. Helena with median incomes of $47,083 and $51,544, which is less than the state median income of $87,100. Community input identified that many of the property owners in this area are not lower income and are in fact very wealthy.

The low-medium income trends in this area of the city may partially be attributed to the three affordable housing developments (Stonebridge Apartments, Woodbridge Village Apartments, and Hunt’s Grove $-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
American
Canyon
Angwin Calistoga Deer Park Moskowite
Corner
Napa Oakville Rutherford St. Helena Yountville
Median Household Income Average
$101,792
$72,625
$67,119
$89,500
$61,875
$88,596
$99,375
$90,031
$69,300
$84,043
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-39
Apartments), Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park, and a senior living community (Silverado Orchards Retirement Community) all located within these two census blocks. The census block with the highest median income is located in the downtown area in the center of the city with a median income of $158,500. The AFFH Data Viewer has no information on median income of the northwest area of St.

Helena.

The LMI populations in St. Helena are concentrated on the east side of the city, as shown in Figure 19.

According to HUD estimates, in the eastern area of the city 68 percent of the population are LMI populations. In contrast, on western side of city less than 20 percent of the population is LMI. This pattern closely corresponds with areas of the city that have a greater non-White population concentration, which is also greater on the eastern side of the city.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-40
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-41
Figure 16 Median Household Income (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-42
Figure 17 Low and Moderate Income Population (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-43
Figure 18 Median Household Income (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-44
Figure 19 Low to Moderate Income Population (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-45

3.5 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty To identify racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (known as R/ECAPs), HUD developed thresholds based on racial and ethnic concentration and income level. The threshold for racial and ethnic concentration is a non-White population of 50 percent or more within metropolitan or micropolitan areas (in rural areas it is 20 percent). Areas of “extreme poverty” are defined using the poverty test as those with more than 40 percent of the population at or below the poverty line or a poverty rate or three times the average of the metropolitan area, whichever is less. Areas that meet both the racial/ethnic concentration threshold and the “extreme poverty” threshold are considered R/ECAPs.

3.5.1 Poverty and Segregation

3.5.1.1 Regional Trends
There are no R/ECAPs within Napa County, however there is a small area of in the southern portion of the City of Napa that would be considered an area of extreme poverty with more than 40 percent of the population below the poverty line. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately 8 percent of the population of Napa County are below the poverty level. Several areas within county have 10 and 20 percent of the population below the poverty line, including areas in the southern region of the county, in and around the Cities of Napa, American Canyon, and St. Helena. Figure 20 shows the poverty status within Napa County.

3.5.1.2 Local Trends
St. Helena does not have any R/ECAPs. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately 8 percent of the population of St. Helena are living below the poverty level, consistent with poverty rates of Napa County. The western half of the city has a greater percentage of the population below the poverty line, between 10 and 20 percent. This area also had a higher percentage of children in a female single parent household.

Figure 21 displays the percentage of the population whose income is below the poverty line in St. Helena.

The poverty rates in St. Helena have shifted over time. The 2010-2014 ACS estimated the eastern half of the city had a greater percentage of the population below the poverty line, opposite of the trend shown by the 2015-2019 ACS estimates.

Figure 22 shows neighborhood segregation in St. Helena using to data from UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project (UDP). According to the UDP the predominant racial/ethnic composition in St. Helena is Latinx-White. ABAG’s Segregation Report also analyzed neighborhood segregation in St. Helena between 2010 and 2020 using the racial isolation index, racial dissimilarity index, and Thiel’s H-Index. The isolation index showed White residents are the most segregated racial group in the city, followed by Latinx residents. The dissimilarity index showed segregation is greatest between Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents, followed by Latinx and White residents. However, the dissimilarity index is an unreliable measure for Asian/Pacific Islander and Black/African populations in St. Helena because their populations are too Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-46
small for accurate calculation. Thiel’s H-index for neighborhood level segregation indicated racial segregation between all racial groups within the city is less than in the average Bay Area jurisdiction.

Compared to all Bay Area jurisdictions, St. Helena is less diverse, with a smaller percentage of the population consisting of people of color.

ABAG’s Segregation Report also analyzed neighborhood level income segregation between 2010 and 2015 in St. Helena using the income group isolation index, income group dissimilarity index, and Thiel’s H-index.

The isolation index showed above moderate income residents are the most segregated income group in the city followed by very low income residents. Among all income groups, segregation of the moderate income population has changed the most between 2010 and 2015, becoming less segregated. The dissimilarity index showed income segregation is greater in St. Helena than in the average Bay Area jurisdiction between lower income residents and non-lower income residents and between very low income residents and above moderate income residents. Overall, segregation between lower income residents and residents who are not lower income increased between 2010 and 2015. According to Thiel’s H-index for neighborhood level income segregation, income segregation in the city is less than the average Bay Area city and remained about the same between 2010 and 2015. Compared to all Bay Area jurisdictions, St.

Helena has a similar share of very low income residents, lower share of low and moderate income residents, and a higher share of above moderate income residents.

In summary, ABAG’s segregation report found White residents and above moderate income residents are the largest and most segregated racial and income groups in St. Helena.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-47
Figure 20 Areas of High Poverty (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-48
Figure 21 Poverty Status (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-49
Figure 22 Neighborhood Segregation (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-50
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-51

3.5.2 Concentrated Areas of Affluence
While racially R/ECAPs have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed. Racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) are affluent communities that are predominantly White.73 According to a policy paper published by HUD, White residents are the most racially segregated group in the United States and are typically more affluent than majority non-White communities. In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence experience less overcrowding, less housing cost burden on renters, and are generally less susceptible to displacement compared to LMI areas.

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

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

1.5x the State AMI, whichever is lower).

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

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

The population of Napa County is predominantly White, with the highest concentration of White residents residing in rural areas of the county. Figure 23 highlights the predominantly White census tracts in Napa County. Areas with a lower concentration of White residents are generally located within the valley where population density is higher. The more rural areas along the eastern boarder of Napa County have high concentrations of White populations, which corresponds with areas that have the highest median incomes in the county.

3.5.4 Local Trends
There are no RCAAs identified within St. Helena. However, similar to patterns of affluence throughout Napa County, areas of St. Helena with higher median incomes correspond to areas with higher proportions of White residents. The northwestern area of the city has a larger proportion of White residents and a higher median income, while the southeastern area has greater racial/ethnic diversity and a lower median income.

The northwestern area of the city has a predominant White population (over 50 percent) and the 73 Goatz, Damanio and Williams, “Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation” https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol21num1/ch4.pdf, (2019).

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-52
southeastern area of the city has a large White population and large Hispanic population (approximately 48 percent each). Figure 26 shows the overlap of high median income and predominant White population in St. Helena.

In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence in St. Helena experience lower percentages of overpayment by homeowners, more positive economic outcomes, and more positive environmental outcomes compared to LMI areas.

3.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
According to HCD guidance, land use policies and planning often translate into the ability of residents to access neighborhoods of opportunity, with high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs that afford entry to the middle class, and convenient access to transit and services. The limits on housing choice and access experienced by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability, have far-reaching impacts on access to job opportunity, quality education, and mental and physical health.74 Access to opportunity often means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food, and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).

The analysis of place-based characteristics linked to opportunity indicators, quality education, employment, transportation, and healthy environment, seeks to understand the disparity between communities in terms of access to real and potential economic benefits and quality of life.

3.6.1 Transit Access
Reliable access to public transit is crucial, especially for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities, to provide connections to employment opportunities. Access to employment via public transit can reduce income burden and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing in more areas.75 The lack of a relationship between public transit, employment opportunities, and affordable housing may impede fair housing choice. Persons who depend on public transit may have limited choices regarding places to live.

3.6.2 Regional Trends
As Napa County is largely rural, residents mainly depend on their personal vehicles for commuting and traveling. Public transit options do exist in Napa County, primarily Vine Transit, a fixed route bus service 74 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 75 Ong, Paul and Evelyn Blumenberg, “Job Accessibility and Welfare Usage: Evidence from Los Angeles.” UCLA Department of Policy Studies, (1998).

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-53
operated by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority. Vine Transit operates fixed bus route service throughout the county from American Canyon to Calistoga and provides connections to the Vallejo Ferry Terminal, and El Cerrito Del Norte BART station, SolTrans stations in Vallejo and Fairfield, and the Suisun/Fairfield Train Station. Lake Transit Authority connects southern areas of Lake County to northern Napa County, with bus stops in Calistoga, St. Helena, and Deer Park. Additionally, several low cost, on demand shuttle services are available to the public providing fixed route and door-to-door transit within the city limits of their operating city, including the Yountville Trolley, St. Helena Shuttle, Calistoga Shuttle, and American Canyon Transit. Residents and visitors with physical and/or cognitive disabilities may be eligible to participate in VineGo Paratransit Service, a shared ride service providing curb-to-curb transportation. VineGo offers rides within and between cities throughout the county as well as to Kaiser Vallejo Medical Center.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-54
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-55
Figure 23 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-56
Figure 24 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-57
Figure 25 Predominant White Population (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-58
Figure 26 Predominant Populations and Median Household Income (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-59
The Commuter Bike Path (Vine Trail) runs parallel to the Napa Valley Railroad and provides an off-street route walking/biking path for recreation and commuting. Ultimately the Vine Trail will cover 47 miles from Vallejo to Calistoga. Currently 12.5 miles of the path has been completed from Kennedy Park in the City of Napa to Yountville. Sections of the Vine trail have also been completed in American Canyon and Calistoga.

AllTransit is an online database that provides details on transit opportunity throughout the United States, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. Napa County received an AllTransit performance score of 3.3 which equates to a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit.76 Approximately 1.5 percent of commuters use public transit in Napa County. The cities of Napa (4.6), Yountville (4.6), and Calistoga (4.0) have the highest scores with a slighter greater combination of number of trips per week, accessible jobs, and available transit routes.

3.6.3 Local Trends
The City of St. Helena has an AllTransit performance score of 2.4 with approximately 1.0 percent of workers who commute using public transit. This score is lower than the County score of 3.3. One Vine Transit bus route passes through St. Helena, providing connections to the City of Calistoga to the north and City of Napa to the south. Additionally, the St. Helena Shuttle Service provides both a fixed route and an ondemand, door-to-door transit service option within the city limits.

Walk Score is a tool that produces a walkability index by assigning a numerical walkability score to cities and neighborhoods. Walkability is measured by analyzing population density, distance to amenities, and road metrics such as block length and intersection density. St. Helena has a walk score of 83, which is considered very walkable, and most errands can be accomplished by foot77. St. Helena’s walkability score is most negatively affected by the limited number of parks within walking distance from different areas of the city.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has a walkability index, which ranks block groups according to their relative walkability. The EPA walkability map, shown in Figure 27, shows that walkability varies across the city. The highest walkability scores are in downtown and along Main Street where most of the commercial areas are concentrated. Further from downtown and in the western and eastern parts of the city, walkability scores are below average.
76 https://alltransit.cnt.org/
77 https://www.walkscore.com/
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-60
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-61
Figure 27 Walkability Index (St. Helena)
Source: National Walkability Index, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-62
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-63

3.6.4 Access to Quality Education
Economics literature has consistently found about a 10 percent increase in wages/salary with each additional year of education.78 Educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. TCAC education domain scores, which are used to identify areas of higher or lower education opportunities, incorporate a variety of indicators including math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates and student poverty rates to assess educational outcomes at the census tract level.

3.6.5 Regional Trends
Napa County is served by five school districts: Napa Valley Unified School District, St. Helena Unified School District, Calistoga Joint Unified School District, Howell Mountain School District, and Pope Valley School District. An overview of education outcomes across the Napa County is illustrated in Figure 28 which shows the TCAC Opportunity Areas map. Education outcomes vary throughout the county. Areas in the western portion of the county and portions of the more urban areas have more positive education outcomes compared to eastern portions of the county and southern parts of the City of Napa.

3.6.6 Local Trends
The City of St. Helena is served by the St. Helena Unified School District which is comprised of four schools:
a primary school, elementary school, middle school, and high school. Altogether, approximately 1,243 students were enrolled in 2020 from the City St. Helena and the surrounding areas. Approximately 45 percent of students were White and 52 percent were Hispanic/Latino. St. Helena Unified School District reported a high school graduation rate of 92.9 percent in 2020, 90.1 percent in 2019, and 94.1 percent in 2018. The district reported all students who did not receive high school diplomas in 2019 were Long Term English Learners and socio-economically disadvantaged students.79 Figure 29Figure 28 shows TCAC scores for education outcomes for St. Helena at the census tract level. St.

Helena has better education outcomes than other areas of Napa County. At the city level, the southern and eastern areas of the city have better education outcomes than the western areas.

3.6.7 Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic opportunities. Access to high quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times.

The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data 78 The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics. 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
79 St. Helena Unified School District 2021-22 Local Control and Accountability Plan https://www.sthelenaunified.org/cms/lib/CA50000465/Centricity/Domain/36/LCAP%20Control%20Accountability%20Plan %202021%202022.pdf
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-64
from the ACS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC), and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.

TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract. They consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. The MTC EPC identifies concentrations of underserved populations in order to direct funding for housing and transportation equity. The HUD Jobs Proximity Index assesses the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-65
Figure 28 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-66
Figure 29 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-67

3.6.8 Regional Trends
According to the California Employment Development Department, the unemployment rate of Napa County was 3.9 percent in February 2022 (not seasonally adjusted). Top employers in the county include manufacturing (including large- and small-scale wine manufacturing), healthcare, and accommodation and food service. The 2015-2019 ACS estimates reported 74,549 workers in the County of Napa with a labor force participation rate of 65 percent of persons 16 years and older. Approximately 33.7 percent of workers commute 30 or more minutes to work with a countywide mean commute time of 25.6 minutes.

Figure 30 shows the TCAC Opportunity Areas map for economic outcomes across the county. Economic outcomes are varied with more positive outcomes generally located in the western areas of the county and less positive outcomes in the eastern areas of the county. This trend may be attributed to the high concentration of vineyards and wineries in the western and central areas of the county and low population density in eastern areas of the county.

3.6.9 Local Trends
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS), there are 3,159 persons in the labor force in St. Helena with a labor force participation rate of 61 percent. The California Employment Development Department reported the unemployment rate was 3.1 percent in December 2021 (not seasonally adjusted), slightly less than the county. Top industries in the city reflect county trends, with the highest number of workers in manufacturing, healthcare, and accommodation and food service.

Figure 31 shows the TCAC Opportunity Areas map for economic outcomes in St. Helena. Much like the county, economic outcomes are varied across the city. Western areas of the city have more positive economic outcomes and eastern areas have less positive economic outcomes. This pattern of lower economic outcomes in the eastern areas of the city reflects the lower median incomes and greater ethnic diversity that is also experienced in these areas. The eastern areas of the city contain affordable housing developments, a mobile home park, and senior living community which may be contributing to lower median incomes and lower median home values.

ACS 2015-2019 estimates show approximately 22.4 percent of workers commute 30 or more minutes to work and the mean commute time is 19.6 minutes. Figure 32 shows the job proximity index in St. Helena which assesses the accessibility of employment opportunities based on distance, a higher index score corresponds to closer job proximity. Job proximity throughout St. Helena is consistently high (closest proximity), especially when compared to the southern and eastern areas of the county.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-68
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-69
Figure 30 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-70
Figure 31 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-71
Figure 32 Job Proximity Index (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-72
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-73

3.6.10 Healthy Environment
Access to a healthy environment is necessary for communities within a city to thrive. Healthy environment analysis considers patterns in the disparities found within individual neighborhoods and protected area groups. These disparities can vary in a number of categories, including air quality, water quality, safe neighborhood, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. Recent California laws, AB 1550, Senate Bill (SB) 535 and SB 1000 emphasize the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue. Environmental Justice, as defined by HUD, means ensuring the environment and human health are protected fairly for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, and consideration the means by which federally assisted projects may have disproportionately adversely affect human health or the environmental on minority and low income populations.80 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution called. High scoring census tracts tend to be more burdened by pollution from multiple sources and are most vulnerable to its effects, taking into account their socioeconomic characteristics and underlying health status.

3.6.11 Regional Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Napa County identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. Figure 33 below shows the pollution burden for Napa County, representing the potential exposure to pollutants and resulting adverse environmental conditions. The more urban areas on the western side of the county have a higher pollution burden, especially within and to the south of the City of Napa. Figure 34 shows TCAC Opportunity Map for environmental outcomes in the county. Similar to the CalEnviroScreen map, the TCAC Opportunity Map shows that the western areas of the county have less positive environmental outcomes compared to the eastern areas of the county. This may be caused by the mountains flank the valley which block wind flow and trap pollution. Additionally, the western and central areas of the county have a higher concentration of people, traffic, and agriculture which produces greater levels of pollution and pesticides. Eastern areas of the county tend to be forested and are less populated

3.6.12 Local Trends
Pollution Burden in St. Helena is lower than many other areas in the county, as shown in Figure 35.

However, the eastern areas of the city have a slightly higher pollution burden (overall score of 40) compared to the rest of the city, with high burdens of pesticides, cleanups, and groundwater threats. The western areas have a slightly lower burden (overall score of 33) with high burdens of pesticides, cleanups, groundwater threats, and solid waste. Pesticide use is considered high throughout the city likely due to pesticide applications on nearby vineyards. There are two cleanup sites located within the city including one site with an active dry-cleaning business and one site with a manufactured gas plant that was dismantled in 1930. These two cleanup sites are also sources that pose groundwater threats to the city. A 80 HUD, 2021. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/ Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-74
third cleanup site is located outside the city limits, southeast of the city, with a food market that has detected high pesticides in the soil beneath the building. A solid waste facility is located in the eastern area of the city which may potentially expose neighboring communities to environmental burdens such as odor, pests, and truck traffic. The southern and eastern areas of the city have a higher pollution burden, which corresponds with areas with higher ethnic diversity, higher populations with a disability, and lower median incomes discussed in the previous sections.

Figure 36 shows the TCAC Opportunity map for environmental outcomes in the City of St. Helena. The southern and eastern areas of the city have less positive environmental outcomes compared to the western areas.

3.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions

3.7.1 Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered cost burdened, and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered severely cost burdened. The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low-income households and persons in protected classes disproportionately experience severe housing problems. Housing problems are households that has one or more of the following problems: lacks a complete kitchen facility, lacks complete plumbing facility, a household that is overcrowded, or a household that is cost burdened.

3.7.2 Regional Trends
Figure 37 shows areas of Napa County where renter households overpay for housing (spend more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs). Overpayment by renters is a widespread issue across the county, especially in the more urban areas of the county as well as the northeast and southeast areas of the county. Similar to overpayment by renters, overpayment by homeowners is common throughout the county, highlighting that the costs of housing are too high for both renters and homeowners. Figure 38 shows areas of the county where homeowners overpay for housing, which is most prevalent in the urban areas of the county as well as the northwest and southeast areas of the county.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-75

3.7.3 Local Trends
Housing cost burden among renters is widespread in St. Helena. Figure 39 shows that 40 to 60 percent of renters overpay for housing in all areas of the city. Additionally, data from HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) indicates lower income households are disproportionately overpaying for housing.

Lower-income households experience higher cost burden than moderate income and above households in St. Helena. Approximately 41 percent of extremely low-income households (those earning 30 percent or less of the local area median income (AMI)) are considered severely cost burdened (spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing). Both renters and owners experience cost burden in St. Helena, with higher proportions of lower income households spending greater than 30 percent or 50 percent on housing.

Table 7 shows housing cost burden of lower income households in St. Helena. Generally, a higher percentage of renters than owners experience cost burden, however, more owners than renters experience severe cost burden.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-76
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-77
Figure 33 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Napa County) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-78
Figure 34 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-79
Figure 35 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (St. Helena) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-80
Figure 36 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-81
Figure 37 Overpayment By Renters (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-82
Figure 38 Overpayment By Homeowners (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-83
Figure 39 Overpayment By Renters (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-84
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-85
Table 7 Housing Cost Burden of Lower-Income Households (2014-2018) Household by Type,
Income, and Housing
Problem Renters Percent Owners Percent
Total
Households
Extremely Low-Income
(0-30 % AMI) 185 160 345
With Cost Burden >30% 100 54.1% 105 65.6% 205 59.4%
With Cost Burden >50% 50 27.0% 90 56.3% 140 40.6%
Very Low-Income
(0-30 % AMI) 240 105 345 %
With Cost Burden >30% 195 81.3% 70 66.7% 265 76.8%
With Cost Burden >50% 35 14.6% 40 38.1% 75 21.7%
Low-Income
(51-80 % AMI) 145 160 305 %
With Cost Burden >30% 100 69.0% 85 53.1% 185 60.7%
With Cost Burden >50% 40 27.6% 60 37.5% 100 32.8%
Moderate & Above
Income
(>80% AMI)
500 1,105 1,605 %
With Cost Burden >30% 133 26.6% 205 18.6% 338 21.1%
With Cost Burden >50% 8 1.6% 60 5.4% 68 4.2%
Total 1,070 41.2% 1,530 58.8% 2,600 %
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018

3.7.4 Substandard Housing
HUD considers housing units to be “standard units” if they are in compliance with local building codes.

Substandard housing is housing that poses a risk to the health, safety, or wellbeing of its occupants or neighbors, includes housing that does not have operable indoor plumbing, electricity, or heat. Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Typically, housing over 30 years old is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. Some older housing units may have health risks such as lead paint and asbestos. Housing issues such as mold may elevate health conditions such as asthma.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-86

3.7.5 Regional Trends
In Napa County approximately 73 percent of all housing units were built before 1990. These older units potentially require minor repairs and modernization improvements. Figure 41 shows the approximate break down by age of housing units.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-87
Figure 40 Overpayment By Homeowners (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-88
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-89
Figure 41 Housing Stock Age (2015-2019)
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 The County of Napa has a total of 881 substandard housing units, approximately 2 percent of the total occupied units in the county. A housing unit is considered substandard if it lacks complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. Of the 881 substandard units, approximately 15 percent lacked complete plumbing facilities and 85 percent lacked complete kitchen facilities. Table 8 shows a breakdown of the number of substandard housing units in Napa County and St. Helena. In the past, lack of telephone service was also an indicator of housing conditions. Today, with the widespread availability of cell and internet phone services, many households have chosen not to install land line telephone services, and availability of telephone service is no longer considered an indicator of substandard housing conditions.

Table 8 Substandard Housing Units (2019)
Condition Napa County St. Helena
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 128 0.26% 0 0.00%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 753 1.55% 83 3.07%
Total 48705 2702
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019.

3.7.6 Local Trends
As shown above in Figure 41, approximately 79 percent of the city’s housing stock was built prior to 1990, potentially requiring minor repairs and modernization improvements.

Table 8 shows 83 units, about 3 percent of the St. Helena’s housing stock, are considered substandard. All identified substandard units lacked complete kitchen facilities. 2014 or
later
2010 to
2013
2000 to
2009
1990 to
1999
1980 to
1989
1970 to
1979
1960 to
1969
1950 to
1959
1940 to
1949
1939 or
earlier
Napa County 1.87% 1.30% 11.76% 12.20% 13.56% 17.76% 12.13% 16.28% 4.86% 8.28% St. Helena 1.34% 0.58% 7.67% 11.58% 11.55% 22.56% 14.64% 14.52% 5.29% 10.27%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%
Year Built
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-90

3.7.7 Homelessness
“Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
• Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and • Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
– A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
– An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
– A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

Throughout Napa Country, homelessness has become an increasingly important issue. Factors that contribute to the rise in homelessness include a lack of housing affordable available for low- and moderateincome households, increases in the number of persons whose incomes fall below the poverty level, reductions in public subsidies, and lack of support for persons with extreme developmental, physical, and mental disabilities.

3.7.8 Regional Trends
Napa County’s 2020 Point-In-Time Count indicated there were 464 persons experiencing homelessness in the county on any given night; mostly in the City of Napa. This is an increase from 322 persons in the 2018 Point-In-Time Count.

3.7.9 Local Trends
The number of homeless persons in St. Helena is unknown as the 2020 Point-In-Time Count does not include a breakdown of the homeless population by jurisdiction. Based on St. Helena’s share of the countywide population, 3.9 percent, it is estimated the City’s homeless population is approximately 18 persons.

3.7.10 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) and severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room. Large families generally have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms, resulting in overcrowding.

Some households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing and accept smaller housing or reside with other individuals or families in the same home. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-91
Household overcrowding is reflective of various living situations such as a housing unit that is inadequately sized to meet a household’s needs, the necessity or desire to have extended family members reside in an existing household, or unrelated individuals or families share a single housing unit.

Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain physical facilities and the delivery of public services, reduce the quality of the physical environment, contribute to a shortage of parking, and accelerate the deterioration of homes. As a result, some landlords or apartment managers may be more hesitant to rent to larger households, thus making access to adequate housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with higher proportion of overcrowding.

3.7.11 Regional Trends
In Napa County, approximately 6 percent of occupied housing units are overcrowded. As shown in Figure 42, overcrowded housing is most prevalent in the cities of Napa and Calistoga. The City of Napa has the highest percentage of overcrowded units. Certain areas within the city have between 14 and 36 percent of households that are overcrowded. Rural areas experience less overcrowding, and some rural areas have no overcrowded or severely overcrowded units.

Table 9 shows the percentage of housing units that are overcrowded. Renter-occupied households had a larger proportion of overcrowded households in the county.

Table 9 Overcrowding by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Overcrowded
(1+ occupants per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(1.5+ occupants per room)
Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total
St. Helena 9.26% 1.57% 4.74% 1.44% 1.01% 1.18%
Napa County 11.92% 2.99% 6.18% 3.50% 0.64% 1.66%
Source: Table B25014 Tenure by Occupants Per Room 2015-2019 ACS. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019.

3.7.12 Local Trends
Based on 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately five percent of households in St. Helena are overcrowded, compared to 6 percent for the county as a whole. As shown in Table 9,a higher proportion of renter households are overcrowded than owned households in St. Helena. Figure 43 shows the percent of overcrowded households throughout the city, no concentrated areas overcrowding of households are shown. ACS estimates indicate overcrowding is a more common housing issue for Hispanic/Latino households than White households where approximately 20 percent Hispanic/Latino households in St.

Helena are overcrowded compared to three percent of White households.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-92
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-93
Figure 42 Overcrowded Households (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-94
Figure 43 Overcrowded Households (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-95

3.7.13 Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production. Decades of disinvestment in low-income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk or experiencing homelessness.81

3.7.14 Regional Trends
The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) is an initiative out of the University of California, Berkeley that conducts data-driven research to better understand gentrification and displacement in order to generate more equitable and inclusive cities. UDP provides data to identify “sensitive communities,” communities that are vulnerable to displacement caused by housing costs or with market-based displacement pressures within or near the community. As shown in Figure 44 below, portions of the cities of Napa and Calistoga are identified as sensitive communities by UDP. These communities are also more racially/ethnically diverse and have lower household median income compared to other areas of the county.

3.7.15 Local Trends
UDP did not identify any areas within St. Helena that are considered vulnerable to displacement, as shown in Figure 45. However, research from the University of California Berkeley indicates that 42.0 percent of households in St. Helena live in neighborhoods susceptible to or experiencing displacement. 81 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-96
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-97
Figure 44 Sensitive Communities (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-98
Figure 45 Sensitive Communities (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-99

4. Local Area of Knowledge
The AFFH analysis identified the eastern portion of St. Helena as generally experiencing more fair housing issues than other areas of the city. Fair housing issues in this area include higher levels of minority populations, low and moderate median income, overpayment of housing, higher median rent, and lower economic and environmental outcomes. The predominant population in this area of the city is White, however it has the highest non-White population of all areas within the city. Additionally, this area has a higher proportion of persons living with a disability compared to other areas. Overall, the eastern portion of the city is a moderate resource area, the same as the rest of the city. Some factors that could play into the trends seen in the data could be the location of existing retirement and older adult living facilities. The population living within these communities are, many time, fixed income and more often single-headed households. In addition, most of the city’s high density land use and housing is located in this eastern portion of the city, which tends to be the housing type most affordable to lower income residents and single-parent households. As part of the Housing Element, the City is committing to improving the number of affordable units city-wide. In addition, with the recently adopted General Plan, the city envisions the redevelopment of Main Street within the eastern portion of the city with new, mixed-use development to increase economic opportunities and investments in this area.

4.1 Local Actions and Policy Efforts
In 2018, the City funded the 2018 St. Helena Housing Update Report, a housing analysis study that identified contributing factors to housing challenges in St. Helena. The report identified that residents believe new housing development primarily occurs east of Highway 29, however according to the report the majority of new construction was located west of Highway 29. In addition, the report also identified community opposition as a challenge to housing development in the city, leading to delays and increased project costs. Community members often desire to maintain the rural character of the city and are very concerned with how new development will impact surrounding neighborhoods.82 In October of 2020, the City Council adopted the Resolution 2020-105: Affirming that Discrimination and Systemic Racism Constitute A Public Health Crisis Causing Disparities in Mental Wellbeing, Language Access, Housing, Economic Development, Health, and Criminal Justice Experience, and Reaffirming Its Commitment to Advancing Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in the City. This resolution commits the City to erasing barriers to opportunities to minority populations, including housing. The Staff Report to City Council for Resolution 2020-105 recommends actions to address racial equity and social justice in the community, including providing Spanish translation for City Council and Planning Commission meetings, provide all City communication in Spanish and reviewing adopted by other cities that promote inclusivity and access to affordable housing.
82 2018. St. Helena Housing and Community Report.
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3395/staff_rep ort-white_paper.pdf
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-100
The City also prepared a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategy to outline the City’s efforts towards diversity, equity and inclusion, and social justice. The strategy includes actions such as creating a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee to discuss topics, including housing and racial justice, and offering live Spanish interpretation for regular and special City Council and Planning Commission meetings. The City continues to provide Spanish interpretation for City Council and Planning Commission meetings.

4.2 Stakeholder Input
The City held three housing workshops to receive feedback from the community on housing issues and the Housing Element Update (on September 16, 2021, January 20, 2022, and March 16, 2022). During these workshops, participants frequently brought up concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing for lower income households and the “missing middle” as well as the need to support affordable home ownership.

AFFH related concerns included the high cost of housing, transportation accessibility, ADU trends (specifically that ADUs tend to be utilized as vacation rentals and not housing).

4.2.1 Other Relevant Factors
Other factors to fair housing issues in St. Helena that have not been previously discussed in this analysis include lack of sufficient housing for farmworkers, availability of affordable units in a range of sizes, access to transportation, access to home ownership. These contributing factors limit the accumulation of wealth and access to housing resources in historically marginalized communities.

4.2.2 Farmworker Housing
An estimated between 6,000 and 9,000 farmworkers are employed Napa County. Sufficient affordable housing options are lacking for farmworkers who are often lower income and have special housing needs, such as seasonal housing. The number of farmworkers employed in St. Helena is unknown, however the city’s central location with regard to vineyards and wineries throughout the county would imply a number of farmworkers are employed in proximity to the city.

4.2.3 Access to Transportation
St. Helena’s public transportation system is operated by Vine Transit which operates one bus route (Route 10) in the city. Route 10 has four stops in the city, however all four stops are along the main road, State Route 29. Areas of the city located further north or south are more than 0.25 miles from a bus stop. This bus route connects the City of Napa and the City of Calistoga where connections to destinations further north or south can be made. Residents who live or work in St. Helena have limited options for traveling via public transit, potentially limiting their housing options.

4.2.4 Access to Home Ownership
Increasing housing costs has produced a barrier to home ownership for St. Helena residents. As of December 2020, Zillow reported typical home values in St. Helena were estimated at $1,665,790, much Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-101
higher than the typical home value in Napa County, which is estimated at $768,410. Typical home values reflect the value of homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. Home values have been consistently on the rise since 2000 (with the exception of the recession). This trend has made it more difficult for residents, especially lower income residents, to afford homes. Affordable housing projects in the city generally consist of rental units, which does not provide opportunities for lower income residents to own homes.

Mortgage application filing and acceptance data from 2018-2019 indicates there are racial/ethnic disparities among homeownership opportunities for residents in Napa County. As shown in Figure 46, 64 percent of White, Non-Hispanic applicants and 50 percent of Hispanic/Latinx had their loan originated, compared to 36 percent of Asian/ API applicants, 0 percent of Black/African American, and 0 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native applicants.

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

4.2.5 Opposition to New Development
According to the 2018 St. Helena Housing Update Report, city residents are “deeply concerned with maintaining the rural character of town” and therefore residents generally oppose housing projects that are perceived to changing neighborhood character. Many previous and ongoing multi-family housing projects 8% 6%
33%
9%
100%
17%
17% 16%
67%
18%
11%
17%
16%
36% 8%
6%
36%
64%
50%
57%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API,
Non-Hispanic
Black or
African
American,
Non-Hispanic
White, NonHispanicHispanic or
Latinx
Unknown
Loan Applications
Application approved but not accepted Application denied Application withdrawn by applicant File closed for incompleteness Loan originated
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-102
have been met with comments and concern from community members regarding environmental impacts, such as increases in water demand and increases in traffic as well as impacts to existing neighborhoods and community character.

4.2.6 Location of New Housing
Some residents of the city feel the city is segregated between east and west of Main Street, where the west side of the city consists of a greater percentage of White, affluent residents while the east side of the city has a greater percentage of non-White and low-income residents. In addition, residents have stated that the multi-family housing in the city is located in the eastern area. According to the 2018 St. Helena Housing Update Report, the majority of new construction over the last 10 years has been west of Highway 29.83 The Magnolia Oaks housing development consists of 44 multi-family housing units, 10 of which are affordable to low-income residents. While this project is located just west of Highway 29, other recently multi-family projects have been constructed on the east along McCorkle Avenue. The City is in the process of adopting a new Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the 2040 General Plan, which would permit duplexes and triplexes within the MR District (see Program H-N). This would create additional housing choices and affordability levels in the MR Districts on the western side of the city. In addition, Programs H-BB, H-EE, and H-XXwould implement placemaking strategies to outreach and work with the more diverse and older populations living in the east due to the historic development patterns.

5.Sites Inventory Analysis

5.1 Opportunity Areas
HCD and TCAC opportunity maps identify areas throughout the state whose characteristics support positive economic (low poverty, high employment, high median household income), educational (reading and math proficiency, high school graduation rates, low student poverty rates), and environmental outcomes (low exposure to pollution). A census tract with a designation of high resource would indicate there are strong educational and economic opportunities, meaning opportunity for current and future residents.

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

However, the eastern portion of the city is has a higher percentage of non-White residents, lower household median income., higher percentage of cost burden among renters and owners, and less positive economic and environmental outcomes compared to the rest of the city. These demographic And socioeconomic patterns influenced the locations of potential lower income sites in the city. 83 Erica Skylar. 2018. St. Helena Housing Update Report. https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3395/staff_rep ort-white_paper.pdf
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-103

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

Demographic and socio-economic spatial patterns show that census blocks with low- and moderate-income households, greater Hispanic/Latino populations, and higher rates of housing problems are located throughout the eastern half of the city. Sites that accommodate housing unit densities appropriate for lower-income units are scattered around the city. Sites that can accommodate most of the lower income units are located in the western and southern part of the city, which has a higher household median income and more positive economic and environmental outcomes. Approximately 38 percent of the total proposed units and 36 percent of the proposed lower-income units planned for in the sites inventory (Appendix B) are located in the eastern part of the city, which has a higher percentage of low- and moderate-income populations and non-White residents. .

Figure 47 shows the site inventory in relation to the TCAC Opportunity Map. Sites proposed within the eastern area of the city, are diverse with a mix of lower income and non-lower income sites. Lower income sites spread across the city. Site 7 (821 Pope Street) and Site 8 (882 and 886 College Avenue) have 50% lower income units and 50% moderate income units. The rest of the proposed lower income sites are 100% lower income units.

5.2.1 Exacerbated Conditions
The northern and eastern parts of the city contain block groups considered moderate resource with a higher concentration of Hispanic/Latino population, higher percent of renter occupied units, higher percentage of overpayment by residents, less positive economic outcomes, and higher pollution burden compared to the moderate and high resource areas of the city. According to California Housing Partnership data, all federal and State subsidized housing within St. Helena is in moderate resource areas in the northern and eastern portions of the city. The Sites Inventory does not exacerbate conditions in vulnerable areas of the city by identifying sites that can accommodate lower income units throughout the city. Additionally, one underutilized site was identified that could accommodate above moderate units in the eastern part of the city, which has a higher percentage of non-White residents and cost burden and lower economic and environmental outcomes.

5.2.2 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence There are no racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or affluence identified in St. Helena. However, eastern areas of the city have a larger population of Hispanic/Latino residents as well as LMI populations compared to other areas of the city. In contrast, western areas of the city have higher concentrations of White residents, higher median incomes, and lower concentration of LMI populations. Sites feasible for lower income housing were identified in these affluent areas.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-104

5.2.3 Access to Opportunity
The city is categorized into 2 census tracts, both of which are considered moderate resource. Housing units in the sites inventory are not disproportionately concentrated in different resource areas, and the sites identified in the eastern areas are scattered on vacant and underutilized parcels to facilitate the development of lower- and above moderate-income units.

5.2.4 Disproportionate Housing Needs
The fair housing assessment found a need for affordable housing for people with disabilities and adequate low-income households. The City incentivizes the development of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing by reducing development fees and relaxing development standards to incentivize housing development. The City may also assist in acquiring and assembling property, subsidizing on-site and off-site improvements, and assisting in relocation activities as well as clearing and demolition.

5.2.5 Subsidized Housing
In 2019, approximately 1,105 households received Housing Choice Vouchers in the County of Napa, with 10 households receiving rental assistance and 6 households on the wait list in St. Helena.84 The AFFH Data Viewer does not have data on Housing Choice Vouchers for St. Helena. 84 City of Napa Housing Authority’s Annual Report Housing Services Agreement, 2019, https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3395/2018- 2019_housing_services_annual_report.pdf
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-105
Figure 47 Location of Sites Inventory in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Figure 47 Location of Sites Inventory in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-106
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-107

6.Contributing Factors
This assessment of fair housing issues identifies factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the City of St. Helena, as shown in Table 10.

Table 10 Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Meaningful Action Fair housing enforcement and outreach · Lack of fair housing requirements and information provided to residents
· Outreach and communication of services
are limited to English
· Limited fair housing testing and
enforcement
· Participate in FHNV meetings, at least
once annually, to coordinate regional
responses to housing discrimination
issues (Program H-XX)
Lack of affordable housing and displacement of
residents
· Increasing rent and house/property costs
· Dominance of single family housing
· Land use and zoning laws
· Availability of affordable units in a range
of housing types
· Diversify and expand the housing stock
to accommodate the varied housing
needs of different groups (Programs H-E,

H-H, H-I, H-J, H-W, H-LL)
· Pursue down payment and mortgage
assistance resources through the
Housing Trust Fund or other resources
(such as CalHome) for local funding to
assist lower and moderate-income
residents (Program H-GG)
· Development of affordable housing on
City-owned sites (Program H-V)
· Provide by right approvals for multifamily housing projects that meet objective design and development
standards (Program H-V)
· At least once annually, provide an
information on accessory dwelling units
(ADUs) in the city, and target outreach
to residents in the high resource

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 A-108
southwest of Main Street and northeast
of Pratt Street (Program H-Q)
Concentration of lower income and minority
households in the southeastern areas of the
city
· Land use and zoning laws
· Location of existing affordable housing
· Prioritize affordable housing in high
resource areas southwest of Main Street
and northeast of Pratt Street (Program
H-V)
· Encourage construction and renting of
ADUs in high resource areas to increase
supply of variety of housing types in the
city (Programs H-I, H-R)
· Prioritize CIP in the eastern part of the
city (Program H-WW)
· Revise inclusionary housing ordinance
for more lower income units, realistic inlieu fees, workforce housing, and more on-site housing requirements (Program
H-F)
· Invest in public infrastructure projects in
low and moderate resource areas that
improve the quality of life for residents
(Program H-WW)
Limited resources for persons with
disabilities
· High cost of transportation for persons
with disabilities
· Lack of ADA compliant sidewalks
· Reduce ridership costs for VineGo
paratransit system (Program H-WW)
· Work with the County of Napa to carry
out the ADA self-Evaluation and
transition Plan to remove barriers for
persons with disabilities to facilities and
programs in Napa County (Program HWW)

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 B-1
Appendix B:

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 B-2
• 11. Housing Resources – Pending and Approved Projects: Revised Table 36 to identify the existing unit at 963 Pope Street as deed restricted.
• 11. Housing Resources – Remaining RHNA: Revised Table 37 to fix incorrect income categorization for 963 Pope Street.
• 11: Housing Resources – Residential Sites Inventory: Added 620 McCorkle (APN 009-502-003) to the available sites inventory.
• 11. Housing Resources – Pending and Approved Projects: Revised Table 36 to identify the existing unit at 963 Pope Street as deed restricted.
• 11. Housing Resources – Remaining RHNA: Revised Table 37 to fix incorrect income categorization for 963 Pope Street.
• 11: Housing Resources – Residential Sites Inventory: Added 620 McCorkle (APN 009-502-003) to the available sites inventory.

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

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

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

Pg.1-11 How were the specific quantified objectives derived under each of the programs and how do they relate to each other? There appears to be significant overlap in Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

changed hands are also at-risk for conversion.

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

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

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

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

which is providing listing prices, not value. Based on current listings in St. Helena, $1.6 million is at the lower end of the range. Local realtors could provide updated Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

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

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

restricted and should be noted.

should be moved to “lower” income.

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

HE 4.8 “Give preference to projects providing workforce housing affordable to up to 140 percent of the AMI” – there doesn’t appear to be an implementation program associated with this policy. What preference would be given, and would it be at the expense of another affordability level?
Implementation Programs
H-A, H-NN “Concentration of sites for affordable housing” – OTSH supports the City’s efforts to ensure affordable housing sites are identified geographically throughout the city. But we caution that land is scarce, and large sites rarely become available that are suitable for multi-unit housing, and, most that do, tend to be located east of Main Street. We support incentivizing affordable housing wherever it can get Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

H-C OTSH believes we should be planning for a more sustainable and less cardependent future. We should be exploring opportunities to increase infill density and expand height limits and reduce parking requirements. Up and in should be the focus. The block of land from south of White Sulphur Spring Creek to Grayson and west of Highway 29 and east of Crane vineyard is one of the most poorly utilized sections of the City, and we believe a housing task force could explore how to unlock the potential here. Expanding the Urban Limit Line should be the last option as it runs a great risk of negatively impacting what makes this such a great and desirable place to live with vibrant wine and tourism industries.

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

develop 36 to 50 units.”

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

1 Aaron Hecock
From: LAURA KEIR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Aaron Hecock
Subject: [External] Land designation
Hi
It appears numerous parcels sent to the state to meet our quota fir homes are not currently available for sale? Are they going to be for sale? And we are not aware? Or, emanate domain enforcement would  be necessary? I firmly disagree with the high to med density development of Valley View Hudson vineyard property being developed as traffic on the road is already more than a residential area should have to handle between cut threw traffic to avoid Hwy 29 to the school traffic it’s impossible to safely get out of your driveway or even ride a bike! Spring Street is narrow and I notice in addition three sites are designated as possible development.

The government/ Bay Area need to either agree to continue our exempt status. Recognize us as a primary agricultural area or the Napa Vally will be destroyed!
Laura
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #6.1.

As concerned St. Helena residents, we have read the Housing Element Update and plan to attend the public forum.

We support the city’s efforts to identify appropriate sites for potential development to provide additional housing that is badly needed. Yet af te
r
reading about proposed rezoning and adding more density, we remain vigilant in pointing out situations where multi—unitprojects would negati vely impact neighborhoods.
e have shared with several City officials the situation we face after th e recent purchase of the parcels at 1521 and 1541 Elmhurst. The owner, Jennifer Mozzetti, and her friend John Bowman, a self-described devel oper from Napa, have disrupted this peaceful neighborhood with their allege d plans to develop the parcel at 1541 Elmhurst into a multi—unitsite with “cooperation of the City.” They initially claimed, as a result of their purc hase of the two parcels, they “owned” the Elmhurst Alley from the property 1 5 2
1 extending to the end of the alley.

The city, through correspondence from Eric Janzen on 5/17/22 and sev era
l
other emails, assured us that the Elmhurst Alley was listed by the Coun ty Assessors as a public right of way and is not owned by Ms. Mozzetti.

Elmhurst Alley is a single lane, dead-end alley that extends off busy Sp rin
g
Mountain Road. It provides access to the vehicles of 5 single family ho me
s
in
addition to the mail truck, delivery trucks and home health care vehicle s
t
h
a
t
service those homes. The tightness of this alley already poses safety questions for Emergency and Fire Department vehicles.

Housin
g
Efor Public Comment
le Aaron City Senior Planner, of St. Helena
ahecoc
k@
cityofst
helena.
org
Cityof St Helena, Hall
Received
JUL1132
0 2
2 1480 Main
St Helena, CA
July 10
, Dear H
ec
o
c
k,
Agenda Item #6.1.

Any development the propert at 1541 Elmhurst from its current singley family residence tamul would beunwise ad unsafe expnding the tiunit
number of alley u
s
e
r
s
.
(day finds the with street many as15
Garb
age
garbage cans as isCertai goal the of adding multi—unit housing inSt !)nly, Helena is a lauda
ble
one but drop tonew amulti-unit project already anin
, dense neighborho
od
wit limited access from asingle-lane, blind aley, would h be ill-conceived.

2. Can individu
als,
see todevelop multi-unit housing ontheir own
kin
g
properties appl
y
tbeinclude onthis site list?
od
Ifthe answer is either question, tokindly we arequest site visit, in person, by a m
e
m
be
r
of the Planning Commission, sothate impact of
will beobvious.

Our specific qu
est
io
ns
are hope these w you can answer:

1.The Housing mentions aninventory possible ofsites, yet no public, that mi
gh
t
beused dvelop tomore housing.
is the parcel atElmhu currently onthis site or list being rst considered?
Sincerely
_
yours,
Dayna Van Kleeck
1800 Spring Mountai
n
C
o
u
rt
/‘
/
H n Ki . 1781 Spri
ng
MRoad
ou
nta
in
-/A ' Susan Ki
stl
ei
1781 S
p
ri
n
g
Moun Road
tain
ad
di
ng
more housing and residents onAlley Elmhurst
Agenda Item #6.1.

Lampkin
777 Spring Mou
ntain
Roa
d
Terence Ford
1806 Spring Mou
ntain
Cour
t
Vlad
ymer
DeLevi 1809 Mounta Court
in
Brenda Hill
1777 pri inRoad
Polin
a1809 Mounta Court
in
Ka F0
1806Mountai Court
n Agenda Item #6.1.

Iv Polina D
eL
ev
i
1809 Spr
ing
Court Mo
unt
ain
Kat r
y
n
Fo
rd 1806 Court Mount
ain
Teren
ce
Fo
rd 1806 Court Mounta
in
Jim L
a 1777 Road Mount
ain
Brend
a
H
ill 1777 Road Mount
ain
VIad
ymér 1809
\De —
Levi
Mountai Court
n Agenda Item #6.1.

1 Aaron Hecock
From: Nancy Dervin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 3:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; CityCouncil; Aaron Hecock Subject: Re: [External] Public Review Draft Housing Element Available Now! Dear HCD,
I am concerned about the City of St. Helena putting forth a Housing Element Draft that contains at least one property that the City has repeatedly been told is absolutely not available which is 601 Pope Street. There are other properties on the Draft that are also potentially not available but this one site is positively not available.

We have a huge housing shortage problem, like most communities. Knowingly including unavailable sites is unethical as well as contrary to the purpose of identifying housing opportunity sites.

What should be or can be done about this?
Sincerely,
Nancy Dervin
St. Helena, CA
From: St. Helena Housing Element <[email protected]> on behalf of St. Helena Housing Element <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 10:31 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Review Draft Housing Element Available Now!

CITY OF ST. HELENA
Agenda Item #6.1.

1 Aaron Hecock
From: Mary Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 12:54 PM
To: Aaron Hecock
Subject: [External] Housing sites
I wanted to comment on the list of potential sites for housing that was in the St Helena Star. I’ve taken the time to look at each of the addresses mentioned.    With the exception of one, I found all of them viable locations. My one exception is the vineyard location on Spring St.

One of the things that makes St Helena unique are the vineyards still scattered within the city. They are a part of our heritage, displaying the agriculture that has made this valley the world class jewel that it is.  Please allow this one to remain as it is.

Respectfully,     Mary Wilson
Sent from my iPad
Mary Wilson
1426 Kearney St.

St. Helena, Ca. 94574
707‐529‐4406
Agenda Item #6.1.

1 Aaron Hecock
From: Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 12:12 PM
To: Aaron Hecock
Cc: Mary Stephenson; Maya DeRosa; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy; Jennifer La Liberte; Jordan Bentley; Joe Mcgrath
Subject: [External] Re: [External] A Potential New Opportunity Site Aaron:

Thanks.

Speaking as a private citizen and neighboring property owner (and concurring with Mary as an OTSH Board member), I would also advocate that this lot [620 McCorkle  ‐ APN 009‐502‐003‐000] be added to this HE cycle as a "Housing Opportunity Site".

In light of the recent multi‐family developments on that street I would recommend however that it remain MDR, otherwise it may cause too much opposition with residents on the south side of McCorkle.

The goal would be to eliminate conditional use requirements which become, as you know, major entanglements in entitlement.

However, as MDR it should be explicitly listed under 17.40.020 Permitted Uses (N):

N. Multiple-family dwellings, apartments, and dwelling groups at a density up to the maximum allowed by the medium density residential district shall be allowed as a permitted use on the following MR zoned parcels, which are identified as “Key Housing Sites” in Table 42 of the city’s 2015-2023 housing element, and are identified as follows by street address and assessor’s parcel number (APN): 567 Pope St. APN 009-070-002; 591 McCorkle Ave. APN 009-070-003; 1817 Spring St. APN 009-322-009; Sulphur Springs Ave. APN 009-362- 015; Spring St. APN 009-441-023 and 009-552-002; 576 Pope St. APN 009-552-003; 1105 Pope St. APN 009- 090-003. (Ord. 17-2 § 6 (part); Ord. 16-8 § 1; Ord. 15-2 § 7 (part): Ord. 12-2 § 6: Ord. 07-5 § 2 (part): Ord. 05-4 § 1 (part): Ord. 03-4 § 11: prior code § 27.51)
Please confirm that the above constitutes "public comment".

Thx,
Joe
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 10:13 AM Aaron Hecock <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mary,
You can certainly make a public comment requesting that it be included as a housing opportunity site. We're holding a joint Planning Commission & City Council meeting on July 21st from 3‐5 pm to take public comment on the public review draft of the Housing Element Update and to receive direction on proceeding. You can comment in writing beforehand, verbally during the meeting, or both.

Kindly,
Aaron
Agenda Item #6.1.

1 Aaron Hecock
From: Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:41 PM
To: Aaron Hecock; Maya DeRosa
Subject: [External] HE Draft Input
Aaron/Maya:

Here are some additional comments/inputs re: Housing Element. Please do not take them as criticism of your hard work.

The Housing Element can be a valuable tool to accomplish our municipal housing objectives if we shape it correctly.

Thanks,
Joe
General Comments:
* Current planning meetings should be held in person with a zoom option. It should no longer be acceptable that public meetings are held entirely by Zoom. It also should not be acceptable that participants to Zoom meetings have no idea how many other participants are present, and, if  participants "opt‐in"  to identify themselves, are identified. * The document and the process are too long, too bureaucratic, and not specific enough with respect to immediate and effective actions and policy changes that will alter the climate in any meaningful way to have a real near‐term impact on affordable or missing middle  housing.
* The document itself is outdated with may reference to data as far back as  2019 representing "current" data. We lived in a far different world than in 2019.
* A major flaw in the Housing Element process for Above Moderate or Market Rate units. Our State Legislators did not comprehend second home or vacation communities.

So meeting the HE RHNA objective for Above Moderate by enabling, say, the Hunter Project is nonsensical if say 50% of the SFHs ultimately become vacation homes.

Having these types of development consume constrained water, sewer and other valuable resources can impinge on more critical housing needs.

Specific Section / Page Comments:

H‐C We should be planning for a more sustainable and less car‐dependent future. We should be exploring opportunities to increase infill density and explore expanding height limits, and reduce parking requirements. Up and In should be the focus. The block of land from south of White Sulphur Spring Creek to Grayson and West of Highway 29 and east of Crane vineyard  is one of the most poorly utilized sections of the City. We should unleash a task force to see if we can unlock Agenda Item #6.1.

2 potential here. Expanding the Urban Limit Line should be our last option, and runs great risk of negatively impacting what makes this such a great and desirable place to live with a vibrant wine industry and tourism economy.

H‐D. Water and sewer access should be prioritized for both affordable and missing middle. Also please define "missing middle" in terms of AMI %. 200%? Water Neutrality Requirement should also be eliminated for any attached affordable and missing middle. Mandate no‐irrigation landscaping instead. All new buildings in CA are highly water efficient by California Building Code. It is better that we have new stock than old stock re: environmental sustainability (similar to newer car fleet vs. older regarding emissions).

H‐M. It should not take 4 more years following 3 years working on the Housing Element to understand what Zoning Ordinances need to be changed to enable housing.
1) Start with removing the Conditional  Use Permit requirement in some manner on MDR Zoning.  At minimum, it should be reduced for any parcel identified in Housing Element as Housing Opportunity Site (not just Key Housing Opportunity Site") . It is imperative to reduce or eliminate "discretionary" review. Discretionary review is the toehold for opposition on these projects. It is also a toehold for CEQA opposition. 2) Define "Missing Middle" in terms of AMI.  200%?
3) Tradeoff off 2:1 (or some such ratio) of affordability requirements on private developers for below moderate units for moderate to missing middle (200%) cutoff units. Ie a developer can meet "affordable" designation if he/she builds (2) deed‐restricted moderate to missing middle (80‐200%AMI?) units for every (1) required < moderate unit (<80% AMI unit).
4) Eliminate Water Neutrality requirements for above. This is just one more hurdle. 5) Eliminate Housing Impact Fees for above. By very nature these projects are having a POSITIVE housing impact. 6) Reduce overall permit fee structure for above. (on page 2‐142 it calculates 12.3% of multi‐family costs on Permits & Fees. This is right after it the HE states that governmental constraints are not a factor? ) Pg 1‐15:

H‐J. What can we do to entice existing ADUs into a deed‐restricted affordable? How about a tradeoff on property tax relief on that unit for 30‐yr deed‐restriction and rental occupancy rate compliance?? Pg 1‐19:

H‐P. We should not further incent ADUS beyond existing state mandates unless they have deed‐restriction and rental occupancy requirements in exchange.

Pg 1‐29:

H‐II. What are the accountabilities of the Housing Coordinator? Why would we not do this under existing Departments? Pg 1‐34:

H‐UU. We should be considering "no‐irrigation" landscaping (at least after plants take hold).

We should eliminate the Water Neutrality Requirement on any deed‐restricted affordable < 200% AMI. This is a cumbersome and complex and expensive requirement to comply with. New attached buildings under CBC are highly water efficient and perform well below 65 GPD per capita. Nix the irrigated landscaping as a tradeoff.

Pg 2‐38:

HE1.B. This document indicates that because units have been built in last cycle that Growth management System was not an obstacle. This is untrue. 632 McCorkle was "lucky" in that we straddled two years and literally consumed (8) of the (9) available allocation. Had this been a 10 unit project, it is not clear what the City would have done. Had there Agenda Item #6.1.

3 been another similar project, it is unclear what the city would have done. Uncertainty is the enemy of Investment and the friend of Risk.

Pg 2‐103
Table 16 ‐ Grayson Apartment  2 units funding source were  not Tax Credits, nor AHP, nor RHCP, nor City funded. These two units were funded privately through inclusionary requirements on 632 McCorkle. This is an important point, because we will not solve the housing crisis here exclusively through non‐profits.

Pg 2‐125:

Saying that Building Codes and Zoning Ordinances are not a "governmental constraint" to development is an entirely untrue statement and somewhat offensive coming from a government agency.  While I would not argue that enhancements in the California Building Code are in most cases warranted, they have most definitely affected housing costs and housing production and have contributed to the shortage of affordable housing stock. Enhancements to CBC  in ADA, Seismic, Fire, and Environmental requirements have played a significant role in the increase in housing costs.   This must be acknowledged. As for Fire Code, nearly all of the costs in the building code are for suppression systems to extinguish a fire that starts inside the building. Most homes in  CA are destroyed by fire from outside the building.. The CBC however is very clear and the requirements do not have broad interpretation, so while costly to comply with, is not a great impediment.

Zoning Ordinances however and discretionary reviews are something entirely different. Developers do not like uncertainty. If a Zoning Ordinance can be interpreted differently by different people ‐ that is problematic. And if the outcome of a Design Review Meeting may be different based on the makeup of a Commission that is problematic.

Developers do not like uncertainty. This is why discretionary reviews are highly problematic. To bring a complete application to Design Review Submission ‐ let's say 8‐12 units ‐ could easily require an investment of $250K. Surveys, Civil Plans, Arch Plans, Elec Plans, Plumbing Plans, Mechanical Plans, etc. This all with the possibility of project Denial.

Lastly. CEQA is a major governmental constraint and should be acknowledged as such. CEQA should have no role in infill projects within ULL unless special circumstances warrant. 2‐132:

We should articulate what Design Review is "not". For projects that are entitled, Design Review has no function in determining whether a project can be built or not to its entitlement. It would be much preferable to establish objective design guidelines that should be followed for multi‐family rather than subject applications to a highly subjective process. 2‐138:

Parking requirements for 2 Bedrooms within the ULL should be reduced to 1.5 spaces for <200% AMI.

Housing Opportunity Sites Input
For the sites listed, the probability that any given site gets developed in the next HE cycle range between 0% and 95% (Phelps Site). Most sites identified have a low probability (< 10%?) chance of being developed. 709 McCorkle: This site has recently been purchased and is intended to function as an estate compound. 741 McCorkle: This house has been recently renovated with significant capital improvements, and is unlikely to be further developed in this HE cycle.
1637 Spring Street: This site has recently been purchased for the intent of turning it into employee housing. My understanding is that the current plan is to convert 1 BRs into 2 BRs through garage conversion.

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Saint Helena Housing Coalition, Inc.

PO Box 988
Saint Helena, CA 94574
July 13, 2022
Mr. Aaron Hecock, AICP Senior Planner
City of Saint Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
Saint Helena, Ca 94574
RE: 2023-2031 Housing Element Draft
VIA: Email
Dear Mr. Hecock:

First of all ,we would like to thank you for the this very through and professional work product. It is obvious that much research and attention to detail has been taken.

A question. Under the Water Section it is stated that “although the maximum amount of (Bell Canyon) water that is available to the City is 992 acre-feet”. Why? In Section 11. Housing Resources -Future Housing Needs we note the following:

The City must ensure the availability of residential sites at adequate densities and appropriate development standards to accommodate these units by income category.(Emphasis added).

Based upon our work in attempting to find suitable land for new “affordable” Essential worker housing our experience, in part, differs from the report’s conclusions:

Regarding the City owned Adams Street parcel considerable thought should be given to identifying the Eastern most portion of the parcel, not the Western end for “affordable” housing. SHHC submitted as preliminary site plan so indicating. Thus, leaving the West end for a potential city hall location or other civic functions. To us, it does not make sense to place any type of affordable” housing at the West end.

Site 4: 905 Main Street. When SHHC made inquiries, we were informed that the owner expressed that this for-sale price of this parcel would exceed $1,000,000. Given the suggested density of five units that would make the land cost per unit $200,000. For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be nearer to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible.

Site 7: 81 Pope Street. Zillow estimates that the current price for this property is approximately $2,000,000. Again, that would work out to a land cost of $100,000 per unit of the projected 20 “affordable Units (to say nothing of the cost of demolishing the existing structure). . For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be near to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Site 9: 1447 and 1515 Spring Street. The Zillow estimated sales price for each of the existing residences at $1.6mm to $1.75mm, totally $3.35mm in value. For the estimated 24 units that works out to a land cost of $139,583.00 per unit. For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be near to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible.

Site 10: Spring Street between Hudson Avenue & Valley View. From my notes during the public comment portion, I believe it was Joe McGrath who said that this property had recently been sold and lease-back on a long-term basis. Based upon that it would appear this parcel is not currently available.

Site 11: 601 Pope Street. This property owner declined SHHC’s to acquire this parcel under a long-term lease. We offered $200,000 per year for a sixty-five-year lease and their response was “oh, we just like the way it looks”.

Site 12: 1637 Spring Street. As recently as this spring this property owner expressed No interest, and the direct quote was “let them try and develop it.” Therefore, Mr. Hecock, unless that City is prepared to use Eminent Domain as in Kelo v.

New London, it appears that the identified sites does not fulfill the “must” requirement of available sites to satisfy Saint Helena’s 2023-2031 RHNA requirements.

Respectfully submitted:

Rick Crebs
Rick Crebs, CEO
[email protected]
707-580-0418
Agenda Item #6.1.

Saint Helena Housing Coalition, Inc.

PO Box 988
Saint Helena, CA 94574
July 25, 2022
Mr. Aaron Hecock, AICP Senior Planner
City of Saint Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
Saint Helena, Ca 94574
RE: 2023-2031 Housing Element Draft
VIA: Email
Dear Mr. Hecock:

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

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

Issue #1:

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

Response #1A:

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

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

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

Adequate means “Sufficient; proportionate; equally sufficient; equal to what is required; suitable to the case or occasion; satisfactory”
Availability Means “This phrase, among mercantile men, is a term well understood to be anything which can readily be converted into money; but it is not necessarily or primarily money.” Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

During the public comment section of the July 21m, 2022 2023-31 Zoom Housing Element, Rick Crebs, from SHHC, raised the issue of financial feasibility of Sites #4, 905 Main Street is stating “When SHHC made inquiries, we were informed that the owner expressed that this for-sale price of this parcel would exceed $1,000,000. Given the suggested density of five units that would make the land cost per unit $200,000. For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be nearer to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible”.

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

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

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

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

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

Use of Grants: Adams Street as an example:

Total Construction Costs $43,116,112 or average of $489,956 per unit (Leased, not sold land) Funding necessary to complete this project: (Projected) City/County $2,000,000 (4.4%)
Other Grants $32,337,084 (75.0%)*
Mortgage or Bond $ 7,054,364 (16.40%)
Total $43,116,112 100% (rounded)
*The largest grants that SHHC has been able to discover are from the California Department of Housing Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grants which currently has a maximum grant amount of Agenda Item #6.1.

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

Issue #2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHHC’s First Suggestion:

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

Table 50 Summary of Housing Units (Extracted)

Lower
Income Moderate Income
Above
Moderate
Income Total
Agenda Item #6.1.

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

SHHC’s Second Suggestion:

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

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

Respectfully submitted:

Rick Crebs
Rick Crebs, CEO
[email protected]
707-580-0418
Ccs: Anil Comelo, City Manager
Maya DeRosa, Director of Planning
Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor
Paul Dohring, Esq. Vice Mayor
Lester hardy, Esq., City Council Member
Eric Hall, City Council Member
Anna Chouteau, City Council Member
Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.2.

Agenda Item #6.2.

DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report
for the
Hunter Subdivision Project
SCH No. 2018032014
Volume I
Prepared for:

City of St. Helena
Planning and Community Improvement Department
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
Contact: Maya DeRosa
Planning and Building Director
[email protected]
Prepared by:
1102 R Street
Sacramento, California 95811
SEPTEMBER 2021
Agenda Item #6.2.

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Agenda Item #6.2.

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10389
September 2021 TOC-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page No.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ACR-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ES-1 ES.1 Document Purpose..........................................................................................ES-1 ES.2 Project Location...............................................................................................ES-1 ES.3 Project Description ..........................................................................................ES-1 ES.4 Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved ..................................................ES-3 ES.5 effects found to be less than significant ..........................................................ES-3 ES.6 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................ES-4 ES.7 Summary of Project Alternatives ...................................................................ES-15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR.......................................................1-1

1.0 Purpose and Intended Use of This EIR..............................................................1-1

1.1 Use of Previously Prepared Environmental Documentation...............................1-1

1.2 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies.........................................................1-2

1.3 EIR Process .......................................................................................................1-3

1.4 Scope of the Draft EIR .......................................................................................1-5

1.5 Organization of the Draft EIR .............................................................................1-7 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................2-1

2.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Site .........................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................2-13

2.3 Proposed Project..............................................................................................2-14

2.4 Discretionary Actions and Use of this EIR........................................................2-32

2.5 References .......................................................................................................2-33 CHAPTER 3.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS..............................................................3-1

3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources...........................................................................3.1-1

3.2 Agriculture And Forestry Resources................................................................3.2-1

3.3 Air Quality........................................................................................................3.3-1

3.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................3.4-1

3.5 Cultural And Tribal Cultural Resources…....................... ………………………3.5-1

3.6 Geology And Soils...........................................................................................3.6-1

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................3.7-1

3.8 Hazards And Hazardous Materials..................................................................3.8-1

3.9 Hydrology And Water Quality ..........................................................................3.9-1

3.10 Land Use .......................................................................................................3.10-1 Agenda Item #6.2.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10389
September 2021 TOC-ii

3.11 Noise And Vibration.......................................................................................3.11-1

3.12 Public Services And Recreation ....................................................................3.12-1

3.13 Utilities And Service Systems........................................................................3.13-1

3.14 Transportation And Circulation......................................................................3.14-1

3.15 Energy ...........................................................................................................3.15-1 CHAPTER 4 CEQA CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................4-1

4.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Significant Environmental Effects.......................................................................4-1

4.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts .........................................4-1

4.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Impacts...................................................4-2

4.4 Growth-Inducing Impacts ...................................................................................4-3

4.5 Energy Usage.....................................................................................................4-7

4.6 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................4-7 CHAPTER 5 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES................................................................................5-1

5.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Alternatives Considered in this EIR....................................................................5-4

5.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...............................................................5-21

APPENDICES
A Notice of Preparation and Comments Received
B California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model Results C California Emissions Estimator (CalEEMod) Model Results D Biological Resources Reports
E Confidential Cultural Resources Reports (not available for public review) F Geotechnical Engineering Report
G Phase I ESA
H Hydrology Report
I Noise Model Outputs
J Water Neutral Report
K Traffic Impact Study
L Well Capacity Study

FIGURES
2‐1 Regional Location.....................................................................................................2-3 2‐2 Project Location........................................................................................................2-5 2‐3 Existing On-Site and Adjacent Land Uses ...............................................................2-7 2‐4 Proposed Tentative Map ..........................................................................................2-9 Agenda Item #6.2.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10389
September 2021 TOC-iii
2-4a Proposed Tentative Map with Conceptual Multi-Family Layout .............................2-15 2-5 Conceptual Layout of Lot 52 ..................................................................................2-19 2-6 Conceptual Rendering of Multi-Family Housing .....................................................2-21 2-7 Landscape Plan......................................................................................................2-27

3.1-1 Photo Locations.....................................................................................................3.1-5

3.1-2 Existing Views .......................................................................................................3.1-7

3.1-3 Existing Views .......................................................................................................3.1-9

3.1-4 Existing Views .....................................................................................................3.1-11

3.1-5 Existing Views .....................................................................................................3.1-13

3.1-6 Visual Simulation Locations ................................................................................3.1-29

3.1-7 Simulation 1.........................................................................................................3.1-31

3.1-8 Simulation 2.........................................................................................................3.1-35

3.1-9 Simulation 3.........................................................................................................3.1-37

3.1-10 Simulation 4.........................................................................................................3.1-39

3.2-1 FMMP Classification..............................................................................................3.2-3

3.4-1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types..................................................3.4-5

3.4-2 On-Site Seasonal Wetland and Drainage Features ..............................................3.4-7

3.4-3 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages ..............................................................3.4-13

3.4-4 CNDDB Occurrences ..........................................................................................3.4-15

3.6-1 Geologic Map ........................................................................................................3.6-5

3.6-2 Soils.......................................................................................................................3.6-7

3.9-1 Surface Water Hydrology ......................................................................................3.9-3

3.9-2 FEMA Flood Hazard Zones...................................................................................3.9-9

3.9-3 Napa Valley Groundwater Subbasin ...................................................................3.9-17

3.11-1 Noise Measurement Locations............................................................................3.11-7

3.14-1 Project SIte Location and Study Area .................................................................3.14-3

3.14-2 General Plan Future Roadway Network..............................................................3.14-5

3.14-3 Existing Pedestrian Facilities...............................................................................3.14-9

3.14-4 Proposed Bicycle Network ................................................................................3.14-11

3.14-5 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment - Single Family & Accessory Dwelling Units....................................................................................................3.14-31

3.14-6 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment - Multi-Family Housing .........................3.14-33

3.14-7 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment - Total (All Uses)..................................3.14-35

3.14-8 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment - Saturday (All Uses)............................3.14-37

3.14-9 VMT Screening Map..........................................................................................3.14-43

5.1-1 Park Preserve Alternative.......................................................................................5-15 Agenda Item #6.2.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10389
September 2021 TOC-iv
TABLES
ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................ES-5 ES-2 Comparison of Impacts of Project Alternatives ...................................................ES-17 2-1 Proposed Project Land Use ...................................................................................2-17 2-2 Earthwork Summary...............................................................................................2-31

3.2-1 Important Farmland...............................................................................................3.2-2

3.2-2 Storie Index Ratings for On-Site Soils...................................................................3.2-6

3.2-3 LESA Model Scoring Thresholds ........................................................................3.2-10

3.3-1 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status ..........3.3-11

3.3-2 Local Ambient Air Quality Data ...........................................................................3.3-12

3.3-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................3.3-15

3.3-4 Construction Phasing Assumptions – 6-Year Buildout1.......................................3.3-21

3.3-5 Construction Scenario Assumptions ...................................................................3.3-23

3.3-6 CalEEMod Default and Adjusted Trip Rates .......................................................3.3-25

3.3-7 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................................................3.3-27

3.3-8 Average Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions – 6-Year Buildout ..............3.3-32

3.3-9 Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions ...........................................................3.3-33

3.4-1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types..................................................3.4-9

3.4-2 Special-Status Plant Species Occurrence Potential on the Project Site .............3.4-17

3.4-3 Special-Status Wildlife Occurrence Potential on the Project Site........................3.4-25

3.5-1 Extended Phase I and Phase II Testing Results .................................................3.5-10

3.6-1 Soil Map Units Within the Project Site...................................................................3.6-4

3.7-1 Top Six Greenhouse Gas–Producing Countries and the European Union ...........3.7-4

3.7-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources in California ...............................................3.7-5

3.7-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources in St. Helena..............................................3.7-6

3.7-4 CalEEMod Default and Adjusted Trip Rates .......................................................3.7-28

3.7-5 Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Six Year Buildout..............................................................................................................3.7-30

3.7-6 Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................3.7-31

3.7-7 Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies ...........................................................................3.7-33

3.9-1 Napa River Flood Stages at St. Helena (at Pope Street Bridge).........................3.9-11

3.9-2 Well Completion Report Records on the Project Site and Vicinity ......................3.9-16

3.9-3 State and Regional Water Quality-Related Permits and Approvals ....................3.9-26

3.9-4 Project Demand from City Groundwater Wells During Average and Critically Dry Years..............................................................................................3.9-42

3.11-1 Definitions of Acoustical Terminology .................................................................3.11-3

3.11-2 Existing Ambient Noise Measurement Results ...................................................3.11-5 Agenda Item #6.2.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10389
September 2021 TOC-v

3.11-3 Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines .........................................................3.11-10

3.11-4 Construction Equipment List by Phase .............................................................3.11-12

3.11-5 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels...............................................3.11-15

3.11-6 Outdoor Construction Noise Levels by Phase...................................................3.11-16

3.11-7 Vibration Velocities for Typical Construction Equipment...................................3.11-18

3.11-8 Proposed-Project-Related Traffic Noise Levels ................................................3.11-20

3.12-1 SHUSD Enrollment and Capacity Data ...............................................................3.12-3

3.12-2 City of St. Helena Recreational Facilities ............................................................3.12-4

3.12-3 Projected Proposed Project Student Generation ..............................................3.12-12

3.13-1 City of St. Helena Potable Water Deliveries by Source.......................................3.13-3

3.13-2 Bell Canyon Reservoir Storage ...........................................................................3.13-3

3.13-3 City of Napa Water Supply ..................................................................................3.13-5

3.13-4 Lake Hennessey Statistics ..................................................................................3.13-5

3.13-5 Milliken Reservoir Statistics.................................................................................3.13-6

3.13-6 SWP Reliability Assumptions ..............................................................................3.13-7

3.13-7 City of St. Helena Safe Yields .............................................................................3.13-8

3.13-8 City of St. Helena Projected Water Supply and Demand ..................................3.13-10

3.13-9 Proposed Project Water Demands (acre-feet per year)....................................3.13-25

3.13-10 Proposed Project Breakdown of Water Demand...............................................3.13-25

3.13-11 Proposed Project Projected Waste Generation.................................................3.13-26

3.14-1 Weekday Proposed Project Trip Generation.....................................................3.14-28

3.14-2 Saturday Proposed Project Trip Generation .....................................................3.14-29

3.14-3 Proposed Project VMT Summary......................................................................3.14-41

3.14-4 Collision Summary (2014-2018)........................................................................3.14-48

3.15-1 Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2017 Electricity Consumption ..........................3.15-2

3.15-2 Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2017 Natural Gas Consumption ......................3.15-3

3.15-3 Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment ...............................................3.15-12

3.15-4 Construction Equipment Diesel Demand ..........................................................3.15-15

3.15-5 Construction Worker Vehicle Gasoline Demand ...............................................3.15-15

3.15-6 Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand ......................................................3.15-16

3.15-7 Estimated Electrical Demand – Proposed Project Operation............................3.15-17

3.15-8 Estimated Natural Gas Demand – Project Operation........................................3.15-18

3.15-9 Mobile Source Fuel Consumption – Proposed Project Operation.....................3.15-18 5-1 Alternative 2: No Project/General Plan Alternative Residential Water Demand.......5-9 5-2 Alternative 2: No Project/No Action Alternative Projected Solid Waste Generation....... 5-10 5-3 Alternative 2: No Project/No Action Alternative Student Generation......................5-11 5-4 Alternative 4: Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative Residential Water Demand ....................................................................................5-19 Agenda Item #6.2.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10389
September 2021 TOC-vi
5-5 Alternative 4: Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative Projected Solid Waste Generation .........................................................................................5-20 5-6 Alternative 4: Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative Student Generation ................................................................................................5-20 5-7 Comparison of Project Alternatives ........................................................................5-21 Agenda Item #6.2.

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ACR-1

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADU accessory dwelling unit
AFY acre-feet per year
amsl above mean seal level
AP Act Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
APE area of potential effects
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BASMAA Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association bgs below ground surface
BMP best management practice
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CH4 methane
CHHSL California Human Health Screening Level
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System City City of St. Helena
cm centimeter
cmbs centimeters below the surface
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
Agenda Item #6.2.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ACR-2
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
County County of Napa
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DOC California Department of Conservation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Authority
GHG greenhouse gas
GPR ground-penetrating radar
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GWP global warming potential
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HDR High-Density Residential
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
kWh kilowatt-hour
LE Land Evaluation
LESA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
LOMR Letter of Map Revision
m meter
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCE Marin Clean Energy
MDR Medium-Density Residential
MGD million gallons per day
MMT million metric tons
Agenda Item #6.2.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ACR-3
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT metric ton
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCFCWCD Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
O3 ozone
OCP organochlorine pesticide
PFC perfluorocarbon
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company
PGA peak ground acceleration
PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
Proposed Project Hunter Subdivision Project
PSHA probabilistic seismic hazard assessment
QSD Qualified SWPPP Developer
QSP Qualified SWPPP Practitioner
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
RMS root mean square
ROG reactive organic gas
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SA Site Assessment
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDC Seismic Design Category
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
Agenda Item #6.2.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ACR-4
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
SHFD St. Helena Fire Department
SHPD St. Helena Police Department
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SHUSD St. Helena Unified School District
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxides
SSMP Sewer System Management Plan
SWP State Water Project
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCR tribal cultural resource
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UVD Upper Valley Disposal & Recycling
VdB vibration decibel
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WQO Water Quality Order
WRA Wetland Research Associates
WTP water treatment plant
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
ZEV zero emissions vehicle
Agenda Item #6.2.

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This chapter provides a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Hunter Subdivision Project (Proposed Project). Included in this chapter are areas of known controversy and issues to be resolved, a summary of Proposed Project alternatives, a summary of all Proposed Project impacts and associated mitigation measures, and a statement of the ultimate level of significance after mitigation is applied.

ES.1 DOCUMENT PURPOSE
This EIR was prepared by the City of St. Helena (City), as lead agency, to inform decision makers and the public of the potential significant environmental effects associated with the Proposed Project. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines; 14 CCR 15000 et seq.) published by the Public Resources Agency of the State of California.

This Draft EIR is a “project” EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161. A project EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific project. Feasible mitigation measures are recommended, when applicable, that could reduce significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance or avoid significant environmental impacts.

ES.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The 16.9-acre Project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number is 009-030-057) is located in the northeast portion of the City, at the eastern terminus of Adams Street, three blocks east of downtown and State Route 29, and west of the Napa River (see Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description). The Project site is generally rectangular with a “panhandle” extension that connects the site to Adams Street west of the panhandle (see Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description).

ES.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Background
The majority of the Project site was acquired by Dennis Hunter in 1997. Planning efforts were first initiated for development of the Project site in 2005 and an application was submitted to the City in September 2010 that included a request for a Tentative Map to subdivide the property for residential development. A completeness letter for the proposed subdivision was issued by the City on March 28, 2011. Since the Proposed Project application was submitted in September 2010 and deemed complete by the City in 2011, this EIR uses the 1993 General Plan as the applicable general plan for the purposes of evaluating the Proposed Project. Nonetheless, this Agenda Item #6.2.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-2
EIR also evaluates consistency with the City’s current “General Plan Update 2040” 1 for
informational and consistency purposes.

The Proposed Project would consist of subdividing the 16.9-acre Project site to include 51 lots to accommodate single-family residences, a 3.4-acre parcel that would accommodate 25 attached residential units, a 0.06-acre parcel “A” that would not be developed, and a 0.04-acre parcel “B” for an existing agricultural well site.

The 25 attached units would be income restricted, with 5 units affordable to very low-income families, and 20 to moderate income families. The 51 lots would be developed with single-family market-rate housing units (one dwelling per lot). The Proposed Project applicant has proposed accessory dwelling units on 11 of the single-family lots, designated for above-moderate income groups. The City’s Zoning Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 17.116.030) and state law provides for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit on any lot which is zoned for residential use and has an existing single-family residence. The 87 residential units (including single-family, multi-family and accessory dwelling units) would have an average density of 5.1 dwelling units per acre.

Project Objectives
Proposed Project objectives allow for the analysis of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project. Reasonable alternatives must be analyzed in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The Proposed Project objectives are as follows:
• Subdivide the site consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning for the site to accommodate residential development.
• Provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types, including multi-family, singlefamily, and accessory dwelling units, affordable to a range of incomes including, very low, low and moderate-income households.
• Provide opportunities to contribute to the provision of workforce and affordable housing consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). • Minimize traffic-related environmental impacts, such as noise, air quality and greenhouse gases by lowering commute patterns for St. Helena workers by providing more local housing opportunities.
1 For consistency, this EIR refers to the “General Plan Update 2040” as the “2019 General Plan,” reflecting the year it was adopted (as with the “1973 General Plan” and the “1993 General Plan”).

Agenda Item #6.2.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-3
• Support alternative transportation by providing a pedestrian and bicycle linkage through St.

Helena, eventually connecting the regional Vine Trail from Calistoga to the Vallejo Ferry. • Exceed the City’s green building ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.53) and incorporate sustainable design features including water conservation measures, drought resistant landscaping with low flow watering systems, south and west side tree placement to reduce reliance on air conditioning units, and pre-wiring for photovoltaic systems. • Implement the General Plan Circulation Element by completing the planned extension of Starr Avenue and the partial planned extension of Adams Street from where Adams Street terminates to connect to the Project site.
• Minimize City water use by continuing the use of an existing on-site water well for irrigation of Proposed Project landscaped areas.

ES.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123(b) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that areas of controversy known to the lead agency must be stated in the executive summary prepared as part of the EIR. Section 15123(b)(3) of the Guidelines requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved; this includes the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. Issues of interest to the public and public agencies were identified during the 30-day public comment period for the Notice of Preparation that was circulated from March 6, 2018 through April 9, 2018.

Concerns raised from public agencies and the public include impacts to the property from potential flooding, traffic and circulation impacts, increased water demand, and impacts to cultural resources. All of these concerns are addressed in this EIR.

The Notice of Preparation and comment letters received during the Notice of Preparation review period are included in Appendix A of this EIR.

ES.5 EFFECTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Due to certain aspects of the Proposed Project, characteristics, or existing regulatory requirements, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to have significant impacts regarding wildfire. The following provides an overview of why the effects associated with this issue area was found this be less than significant and therefore not further analyzed in further in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR.

Wildfire
The Proposed Project is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The Agenda Item #6.2.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-4
Project site is located in a non-VHFHSZ within a Local Responsibility Area, with the closest VHFHSZ in a State Responsibility Area approximately 1 mile to the northeast (CAL FIRE 2008).

Between the Project site and the VHFHSZ is the Napa River.

Starting in August 2020 there were a number of wildfires including the LNU Lightning Complex Fire and the Glass Fire that burned large areas of Napa County including a small portion of the Project site. Based on the current CAL FIRE maps the Project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area and is not designated as a VHFHSZ. Emergency access and the potential for the Proposed Project to expose people or structures to loss, injury or death involving wildland fires is addressed in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Adequate emergency access is addressed in Section 3.8 and Section 3.14, Transportation. The Project site is flat so fire hazards due to proximity to hilly terrain or landslides due to post-fire conditions would not be a concern. In addition, the Proposed Project does not require installation of infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk. Because the Project site is not located within a VHFHSZ and future development is not anticipated to have significant impacts due to wildfire this topic is not further analyzed in this document.

ES.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND

MITIGATION MEASURES
Table ES-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, provides a summary of the impact analysis and a summary of environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1).

For a more detailed discussion of Proposed Project impacts, please see Chapter 3 of this EIR. Table ES-1 also lists the level of significance of an impact prior to mitigation and lists all applicable mitigation measures identified for significant impacts, as well as providing the level of significance after mitigation.

Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-5
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources

3.1-1: Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista? This would be
a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.1-2: Would the project conflict with applicable
regulations governing scenic quality or
substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? This would be a lessthan-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.1-3: Would the project potentially create a
new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area? This would be a potentially significant
impact.

PS AES-1: To minimize spillover light while ensuring adequate nighttime security, the Project applicant shall prepare lighting design guidelines for the Project to be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the Design Review process. The lighting design guidelines shall include a lighting plan noting fixtures and lumens, and standards such as, lighting is to be shielded and downward focused to reduce glare and spillover light, up cast decorative lighting shall be limited to minimize effects on wildlife and to retain the rural ambience of the area, and the use of mirrored glass shall not be permitted. The lighting guidelines shall conform with Lighting Zone 2 of Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. The guidelines and lighting plan shall be approved as part of the Design Review application.

LTS

3.1-4: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative changes in the existing visual
character or conflict with applicable regulations
governing scenic quality? The project’s
contribution would not be considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.1-5: Would the proposed project contribute to
a cumulative increase in light and glare? The
project’s contribution would not be considerable
with mitigation.

PS See Mitigation Measure AES-1. Mitigation Measure AES-1 mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required. LTS

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

3.2-1: Would the project convert Prime
Farmland and Farmland of Statewide
Importance, as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use? This is a lessthan-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.2-2: Would the project involve other changes
in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of
farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use? This is a lessthan-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.2-3: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative impacts associated with the loss or
conversion of existing agricultural resources?
The project would result in a less than
considerable contribution.

LTS None required. LTS

Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-6
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.3 Air Quality

3.3-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? This is a lessthan-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.3-2: Would implementation of the proposed
project result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard? This is a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.3-3: Would implementation of the proposed
project expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? This is a
less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.3-4: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative air quality emissions within the
existing area? The contribution would not be
considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.4 Biological Resources

3.4-1: Would the proposed project have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service? This would be a
significant impact.

PS BIO-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats in trees adjacent to the Project site within 2 weeks prior to any Project construction (site clearing, grading). The habitat assessment shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and presence of guano within the Project site and 50 feet around these areas. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be mapped and described in a survey letter report. If roosting bats (individuals or colonies) are detected within the Project site, California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be notified as soon as possible prior to any construction activity to confirm the bats can be avoided during construction. If a bat roosting or maternity colony cannot be completely avoided, a qualified biologist shall prepare a bat mitigation and monitoring plan for California Department of Fish and Wildlife review and approval, and that plan shall be implemented prior to commencement of construction that could impact the roosting bats or maternity colony.

BIO-2: If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season for birds (February 1 through August 31), the Project applicant or their contractor shall implement the following measures to avoid potential adverse effects to nesting raptors and other nesting birds:
• Preconstruction surveys by a biologist of all potential nesting habitats within 500-feet of construction activities, where accessible, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.

Surveys shall occur no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of site disturbance. If construction is stopped for 14 days or more during the breeding season, a new preconstruction nesting bird survey must be conducted before work can be restarted to ensure no new nesting has occurred in the interim. • If preconstruction surveys indicate that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the construction period, no further mitigation is required, following submittal of a survey report letter to the City of St. Helena Planning Department. • If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a no-disturbance buffer shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until it is determined by the biologist that all the young have fledged. The buffers shall be established by the biologist in conjunction with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Typical buffers may include 500 feet for raptors and 50 to 250 feet for other bird species based on the location of the nest, the nesting species present, and types of construction activities that may cause potential nest abandonment. The perimeter of the buffer zone shall be fenced or marked with staked flagging.

See Mitigation Measure AES-1. Mitigation Measure AES-1, which addresses spillover light that can affect some species mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required.

LTS

3.4-2: Would the proposed project have a
substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? This would be a significant impact.

PS BIO-3: Wetland permits (e.g., 404 Nationwide Permit, 401 Water Quality Certification, and 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, respectively) shall be obtained prior to any grading work.

Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate authorization from the Army Corp of Engineers and any other regulatory agency to alter the wetland.

LTS

Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-7
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.4-3: Would the proposed project interfere
substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites? This would be a
potentially significant impact.

PS See Mitigation Measures AES-1, BIO-1 and BIO-2. Mitigation Measures AES-1, BIO-1 and BIO-2 mitigate this impact and no additional mitigation is required.

BIO-1 (requires preconstruction habitat assessment and avoidance of roosting bats), BIO-2 (requires preconstruction surveys and avoidance of nesting birds), and AES-1 addresses spillover light that can affect some species.

LTS

3.4-4: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative impacts with respect to biological
resources? The project’s contribution would not
be considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

3.5-1: Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5? This would be a
significant impact.

PS CUL-1: The City shall require that an archaeological monitor is present during all ground-disturbing activities with the potential to impact previously identified cultural resources or to encounter unanticipated cultural deposits including tribal cultural resources. The determination for a Native American monitor to be present shall be made by the City, in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribe prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities. In addition, prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing work, construction crews shall be made aware of the potential to encounter cultural resources and the requirement for cultural monitors to be present during these activities. Areas observed to have potential to contain yet-identified subsurface cultural material or deposits are located throughout the Project site, but primarily would be in the western portion of the site where the existing vineyard is located. It is anticipated resources would not be present at depths of more than 10 feet below the surface. Archaeological and Native American monitoring may be adjusted at the recommendation of the qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, and in consultation with the City, based on inspection of exposed subsurface soils and their observed potential to contain intact cultural deposits or material.

The archaeological and tribal monitors shall be provided a copy of technical reports prepared for the project and pertinent appendices to inform their monitoring efforts. The archaeological and tribal monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt work to inspect areas as needed for potential cultural material or deposits. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until the qualified archaeological principal investigator, that meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted, in consultation with the Tribe. Should it be determined by the Tribe and the archeologist, temporary flagging may be installed around this resource in order to avoid any disturbances from construction equipment. As approved by the City in consultation with the Tribe, this buffer may be adjusted by the Tribe and the archaeological principal investigator to a distance that maintains a protective perimeter around the unanticipated resource, while still allowing for construction to continue in the surrounding area.

LTS

3.5-2: Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5? This would be a
potentially significant impact.

PS See Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required. LTS

3.5-3: Would the project disturb human
remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? This would be a less-thansignificant impact.

PS CUL-2: In the event any human remains are unearthed during site disturbing activities, Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies protocols to follow in the event human remains are discovered. The Code mandates stopping work within 100 feet of the find and contacting the County Coroner to determine the origin of the remains. If the remains are determined to be Native American the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours to request that the Commission determine the person or persons it believes to be descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant shall be provided with the opportunity to make recommendations regarding the means of treating or disposing of the remains with appropriate dignity. Project-related ground disturbance in the vicinity of the find shall not resume until all statutory requirements have been met and evidence of completion has been submitted to the City, in consultation with the Tribe.

LTS

3.5-4: Would the proposed project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or
eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources, or a resource determined
PS See Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required. LTS

Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-8
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
by the lead agency to be significant? This
impact is considered potentially significant.

3.5-5: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative impacts to cultural resources,
including historical and archeological resources
as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5 and human remains? This impact is
considered potentially significant.

PS See Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required. LTS

3.5-6: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources,
currently listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or
in a local register of historical resources, or a
resource determined by the lead agency to be
significant? This impact is considered
potentially significant.

PS See Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required. LTS

3.6 Geology and Soils

3.6-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic
ground shaking and/or liquefaction? This would
be a potentially significant impact.

PS GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building permits, the Project applicant shall have a design-level geotechnical report prepared and submitted to the City of St.

Helena Building Department for review and approval in accordance with adopted City standards. The structural designs shall adhere to the currently adopted version of the California Building Code. The report shall identify specific site preparation methods, grading practices, foundation designs, and other recommendations appropriate for minimizing damage from weak soils, expansive soils, differential settlement, and seismic hazards, including liquefaction. Specifically, the following requirements for the geotechnical and soils report shall be met:
• Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall conduct a detailed evaluation of liquefaction in accordance with California Department of Conservation Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. • Additional subsurface soil borings shall be completed as necessary to represent the full range of site conditions, including the southern portion of the parcel mapped as alluvial fan.
• Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall include recommendations for building foundations and improvements, including sidewalks, parking lots, and subsurface utilities, that take into consideration the potential effects of settlement, collapse, and expansive or corrosive soils. This includes the recommendation to over excavate to an average depth of 4.5 feet (and up to 10 feet in the location of the former pond) due to anticipated settlement. • All design criteria and specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical report shall be implemented as a condition of project approval. This report shall be completed as a condition of approval of the final tentative map.

LTS

3.6-2: Would implementation of the proposed
project occur on weak, compressible, and/or
expansive soils that could result in adverse
impacts on habitable structures? This would be
a less-than-significant impact.

PS See Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required. LTS

3.6-3: Would implementation of the proposed
project directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site? This would be
a potentially significant impact.

PS GEO-2: In the event that known or suspected paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading or trenching, the area of discovery shall be roped off by the construction contractor to include a 50-foot radius buffer and remain off-limits until cleared by a qualified paleontologist. The Project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) guidelines, who shall be tasked with assessing the significance of the fossil find, including documenting the nature, location, and taxa of the find. The qualified paleontologist shall use his/her professional judgement as to the significance of the find, and whether the find should be preserved in a museum repository. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor shall remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find. Documentation of the fossil find, including appropriate salvage and recovery of fossil specimens and of transfer of to an appropriate repository (e.g., University of California Museum of Paleontology) shall be submitted to the City of St. Helena as evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure.

LTS

Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-9
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.6-4: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative impacts related to geologic or
seismic hazards? This would be a less than
considerable contribution.

LTS None required. LTS

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.7-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? This
would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.7-2: Would implementation of the proposed
project would conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
This would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.7-3: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative GHG emissions within the region?
The project’s contribution would not be
considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.8-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? This would be a less-than-significant
impact.

LTS None required LTS

3.8-2: Would implementation of the proposed
project create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? This would be a
potentially significant impact.

PS HAZ-1: As a condition of approval for construction and grading permits for the Project site, the Project applicant shall the ensure following subsurface soils testing and follow-up analysis shall be performed prior to obtaining a grading permit:
• A soils testing work plan shall be developed in accordance with DTSC’s Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (DTSC 2008) by an appropriately licensed individual (i.e., professional geologist, environmental engineer, or similar qualification) for the portions of the Project site historically used for agriculture. Special consideration shall be given to targeting site soils that are representative of historic agricultural use, and to avoid sampling recent fill material placed during levee construction. Prior to carrying out soils testing, the work plan shall be submitted to the Napa County Division of Environmental Health (as the Certified Unified Program Agency for all cities and areas of Napa County) and the City of St. Helena for review and approval. • The number of soil samples, sampling methods, compounds tested, background samples (if applicable), and laboratory analyses shall be completed in accordance with DTSC’s Interim Guidance. Should analytical results exceed naturally occurring concentrations or applicable CHHSLs, the health risks of such a condition shall be evaluated in human health risk assessment as described in DTSC standards and guidance (e.g., preliminary endangerment assessment guidance manual). • The risk assessment shall describe measures that must be implemented to ensure potential health risks to construction workers, site residents, and the general public as a result of hazardous materials are reduced to a cumulative risk of less than one in one million for carcinogens and a cumulative hazard index of 1 for non-carcinogens, or as required by the Napa County Division of Environmental Health acting as the Certified Unified Program Agency and/or DTSC oversight.

In the event human health risk assessment shows elevated chemical concentrations pose a risk to human health or the environment, the risks shall be eliminated or substantially reduced by removal (e.g., excavation of soils and off-site disposal) or remediation of contaminated soils, and/or implementation of institutional controls and engineering controls (IC/EC). IC/EC may include use of a construction risk management plan, use of hardscape to cap problem areas, importation of clean soil in landscaped LTS

Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-10
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
area to eliminate exposure pathways, and/or deed restrictions. If IC/EC are implemented, an Operations and Maintenance Program shall be prepared and implemented to ensure that the measures adopted are maintained throughout the life of the Project.

The soil testing report, and if applicable, the human health risk assessment and Operations and Maintenance Program, shall be subject to review and approval by the City of St.

Helena Department of Public Works, the Napa County Division of Environmental Health and/or other regulatory oversight agencies.

3.8-3: Would implementation of the proposed
project impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? This
would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.8-4: Would implementation of the proposed
project expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires? This
would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.8-5: Would implementation of the proposed
project contribute to a cumulative increase in
the potential exposure of people to sites where
soil contamination could be present from past
or current uses, or to hazards associated with
the use and transport of hazardous materials?
The project’s contribution would be less than
considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.9-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project violate water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality? This would be a less-than-significant
impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.9-2: Would implementation of the proposed
project deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? This
would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.9-3: Would implementation of the proposed
project substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area through the addition
of impervious surfaces resulting in erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; increasing the rate or
amount of surface runoff resulting in flooding
on- or off-site; contributing runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
LTS None required. LTS

Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-11
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
provide polluted runoff; or impede or redirect
flood flows? This would be a less-thansignificant impact.

3.9-4: Would implementation of the proposed
project release pollutants during flooding? This
would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.9-5: Would implementation of the proposed
project conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan? This would be
a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.10 Land Use

3.10-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project conflict with the City’s 1993 General
Plan policies or other regulations adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? This would be a lessthan-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.11 Noise and Vibration

3.11-1: Would short-term construction noise
levels cause a substantial temporary increase
in ambient noise levels? This would be a
potentially significant impact.

PS NOI-1: The Project applicant or its contractors shall implement the following for onsite noise control and sound abatement means that, in aggregate, would yield sufficient construction noise reduction during the site preparation, grading/excavation, and building construction phases of the Project to ensure compliance with the FTA-based guidance standard of 90 dBA hourly Leq at or beyond the property lines of the nearest residences, as noted.

Administrative Controls – At all times during site preparation and construction:
• Comply with Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code with respect to allowable construction periods, • Minimize idling time of onsite equipment, and
• Either locate onsite stationary construction equipment (such as generators or air compressors) as far from adjacent residential property boundaries as is feasible, or place this equipment inside an approved noise-attenuating casing (e.g., sound-attenuated air intakes and heat vents, exhaust mufflers, etc.), or place this equipment indoors.

Engineering Controls – All mobile and stationary construction equipment employing an internal combustion engine shall be equipped with suitable exhaust and intake silencers which are in good working order; and
Install Sound Abatement – During site preparation and construction which involves the operation of more than two pieces of heavy equipment (dozer, backhoe, front-end loader, crane, tractor, etc.) for at least one hour and when operating within 25 feet of the exterior of a residence (either offsite or onsite), do the following:
• Erect a temporary barrier (i.e., plywood sheet) or install sound blankets (or comparable temporary solid barriers) on the Project’s construction fencing, or • Locate sound path intervening containers or trailers onsite to block direct line-of-sight between residences and the operating heavy equipment.

LTS

3.11-2: Would existing residential areas be
exposed to vibration peak-particle velocities
greater than 0.2-inch per second or vibration
levels greater than 80 VdB due to project
construction? This would be a less-thansignificant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-12
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.11-3: Would on-site operation noise from the
proposed residences result in noise exposure
levels that would impact adjacent residences?
The impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required. LTS

3.11-4: Would the proposed project vehicle
trips result in off-site roadway noise level
increases that could impact noise sensitive land
uses located along such roadways? The impact
would be less than significant.

LTS None required. LTS

3.11-5: Would the proposed project, in addition
to cumulative development in the City, increase
traffic noise that exceeds the City’s noise
standards? The project’s contribution would not
be considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.12 Public Services and Recreation

3.12-1: Would the proposed project increase
demand for public services requiring the need
to construct new facilities, or expand existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts? This would
be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.12-2: Would the proposed project increase
the use of existing neighborhood parks or other
recreational services such that a substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur, or require the construction or expansion
of facilities that could have a physical adverse
effect on the environment? This would be a
less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.12-3: Would the proposed project contribute
to a cumulative increase in demand for public
services, schools, and recreation facilities? The
project’s contribution would not be
considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.13 Utilities

3.13-1: Would the proposed project require or
result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities? This is a
less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-13
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.13-2: Would the proposed project have
sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple
dry years? This is a less-than-significant
impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.13-3: Would the proposed project result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project
that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments? This is a
less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.13-4: Would the proposed project generate
solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals? This
is a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.13-5: Would the proposed project comply with
federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? This is a
less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.13-6: Would the proposed project contribute
to an increase in demand for water supply,
wastewater treatment, stormwater or solid
waste? The project’s contribution would not be
considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.14 Transportation and Traffic

3.14-1: Would the proposed project conflict with
an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities? This would be a less-than-significant
impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.14-2: Would the proposed project conflict or
be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3(b)? This is a significant impact.

SU None available. SU

3.14-3: Would the proposed project increase
hazards due to a geometric design feature or
incompatible use? This is a less-thansignificant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-14
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.14-4: Would the proposed project result in
inadequate emergency access. This is a lessthan-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.14-5: Under Cumulative conditions, would the
proposed project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b)? This is
considered a significant impact.

SU None available. SU

3.15 Energy

3.15-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project result in wasteful, inefficient or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources
during construction or operation? This would be
a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.15-2: Would implementation of the proposed
project conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
This would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.15-3: Would the proposed project contribute
to an increase in wasteful, inefficient or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources
during construction or operation? The project’s
contribution would not be considerable.

LTS None required. LTS
PS= Potentially Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS = Less than Significant NI= No Impact

Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-15
ES.7 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies the parameters within which consideration and discussion of alternatives to a project should occur. As stated in this section of the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives must focus on those that are reasonably feasible and that attain most of the basic objectives of the project. Each alternative should be capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of that project. The rationale for selecting the alternatives to be evaluated and a discussion of the No Project Alternative are also required, per Section 15126.6.

Alternatives Evaluated
This EIR includes an evaluation of the following alternatives:
• Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development
• Alternative 2 – No Project/General Plan
• Alternative 3 – Park/Open Space Preserve
• Alternative 4 – Increased Density/Affordable Housing
Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development
The No Project Alternative assumes that the Proposed Project would not be developed and the current undeveloped Project site would remain and not be altered.

Given the development assumptions of the 1975 General Plan, the 1993 General Plan and the 2019 General Plan, all of which assumed residential development on the project site, it is unlikely that this site would remain undeveloped. The Project site is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) in both the 1993 General Plan and the 2019 General Plan.

According to the 1993 General Plan, the Medium Density Residential (MDR) designation provides for single-family detached and attached homes, secondary residential units, public and semi-public uses, and similar and compatible uses. Although the No Project Alternative would not meet the objectives identified for the Proposed Project and those development assumptions in the General Plans, CEQA requires an alternative that forgoes the project be analyzed.

Alternative 2 – No Project/General Plan
Under this alternative, it is assumed the Project would be developed consistent with the underlying MDR land use designation and MR zoning which allows development of the Project site with residential uses up to a maximum density of 12 dwelling units/acre (du/ac) under the Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-16
1993 General Plan MDR designation which was revised to 16 du/ac under the 2019 General Plan consistent with the MR zoning, which permits a maximum density of 16 du/ac.

For the purposes of this alternative a density of 9 du/ac was assumed for a total of 152 singlefamily residential units. Based on the number of units this alternative would result in a population of 372 residents, an increase of 159 residents as compared to the Project.

It is assumed Starr Avenue and Adams Street would both be extended to connect to the Project site and the street and lot layout would be very similar to the Project with the exception of the

3.4-acre portion of the site currently designated for multifamily units (Lot 52). This portion of the Project site would be configured to accommodate single-family residences.

Alternative 3 – Park/Open Space Preserve
This alternative includes a 1-acre park that would preserve a majority of the on-site wetlands.

Although three lots would need to be removed to accommodate the 1-acre park, this alternative would include approximately the same number of units as the Proposed Project, including the 25 affordable housing units. It is assumed up to 11 Accessory Dwelling units could still be constructed on the larger lots.

Alternative 4 – Increased Density/Affordable Housing
The Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative includes the approximately 1-acre park to preserve a majority of the on-site seasonal wetlands with the remaining approximately 16-acres designated for up to 180 affordable housing units, assuming a density of 11.3 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) under the existing Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation (current zoning allows for a maximum density of 16.0 du/ac). The units would be attached housing (duplex or triplex) and would be 100% affordable. It is assumed buildings would be no taller than 30-feet, consistent with the underlying MR zoning.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
Table ES-2, Comparison of Impacts of the Alternatives, provides a summary of the alternatives impact analysis considered in the EIR and identifies the areas of potential environmental effects per CEQA, and ranks each alternative as better, the same, or worse than the Proposed Project with respect to each issue area.

Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-17
Table ES-2
Comparison of Impacts of Project Alternatives
Environmental Issue Area
Proposed
Project
Alternative 1
No Project/
No
Development
Alternative 2
No Project/
General
Plan
Alternative 3
Park/Open
Space Preserve
Alternative 4
Increased
Density/
Affordable
Housing
Aesthetics/Visual Resources LTS/MM ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Agriculture and Forestry
Resources LTS ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Air Quality LTS ▼ ▬ Δ Δ
Biological Resources LTS/MM ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
Cultural Resources LTS/MM ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Geology and Soils LTS/MM ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS ▼ ▬ Δ Δ
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials LTS ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Land Use LTS ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Noise and Vibration LTS/MM ▼ ▬ Δ Δ
Public Services and Recreation LS ▼ Δ ▬ Δ
Utilities LTS ▼ ▬ Δ Δ
Traffic and Circulation SU ▼ ▬ ▼ ▼
Energy LTS ▼ ▬ Δ Δ
Δ Alternative is likely to result an increase in severity of the impact when compared to Proposed Project. ▬ Alternative is likely to result in similar impacts when compared to Proposed Project. ▼Alternative is likely to result in reduced impacts when compared to Proposed Project.

LTS/MM = Less than significant impact with mitigation, LTS = Less than significant impact, SU=Significant and Unavoidable As indicated in Table ES-2, Alternative 1, the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in the fewest environmental impacts, and subsequently would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

Of the alternatives evaluated above, Alternative 2, the Park Preserve alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.

Agenda Item #6.2.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-18

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.2.

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 1-1
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR

1.0 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USE OF THIS EIR
The City of St. Helena (City) has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to inform the general public, the local community, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other interested public agencies, and the City’s decision-making bodies (City Council) regarding the potential significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed Hunter Subdivision Project (Proposed Project), as well as possible measures to mitigate those potential significant effects including alternatives to the Proposed Project. This Draft EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), and the City’s procedures for implementing CEQA. This Draft EIR is a “project” EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161. A project EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific project.

As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is an informational document that assesses potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, as well as identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to a proposed project that could reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts. As the CEQA lead agency for this Proposed Project, the City is required to consider the information in the EIR along with any other available information in deciding whether to approve the Proposed Project entitlements requested. The basic requirements for an EIR include providing information that establishes the environmental setting (or project baseline), and identifying environmental impacts, mitigation measures, project alternatives, growth inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. In a practical sense, an EIR functions as a method of fact-finding, allowing an applicant, the public, other public agencies, and agency staff an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and project impacts through a process of full disclosure.

Additionally, this EIR provides the primary source of environmental information for the lead agency and also those responsible agencies to consider when exercising any permitting authority or approval power directly related to implementation of this Proposed Project. It is not the intent of an EIR to recommend either approval or denial of a project.

1.1 USE OF PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION A Proposed Project application to develop the site was submitted to the City in 2010, and the City retained an environmental consultant in 2011 to prepare an EIR for the Proposed Project.

The environmental review process was completed, and in September 2013, the City’s Planning Commission reviewed comments received on the Draft EIR, but no action was taken by the Commission and the item was continued. Revisions were subsequently made to the Proposed Project that required the Draft EIR to be updated.

Agenda Item #6.2.

1 - INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 1-2
Updates to the Draft EIR were completed in 2017, but the City opted to not release the Draft EIR for public review due to problems with that document that required additional work.

Ultimately, the City released a Request for Proposals for the preparation of this (2021) EIR.

The 2012 and 2017 Draft EIRs were reviewed in preparation of this EIR.

In May 2019, the City adopted the “General Plan Update 2040.” 1 However, since the Proposed
Project application was submitted in September 2010 and deemed complete by the City in 2011, this EIR uses the 1993 General Plan as the applicable general plan for the purposes of evaluating the Proposed Project. Nonetheless, this EIR will also evaluate consistency with the City’s adopted 2019 General Plan for informational and consistency purposes.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 allows for incorporation by reference of “all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public.” Incorporation by reference is used principally as a means of reducing the size of EIRs. This Draft EIR relies in part on data, environmental evaluations, and mitigation measures from the prior Draft EIRs, and other components of environmental documents and plans prepared by the City for areas within the Proposed Project vicinity. These documents are listed here and used as source documents for this Draft EIR. All documents are available for public review during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) at the City of St. Helena Planning Division, 1480 Main Street, St. Helena, California 94574, and on the City’s website at http://www.ci.st-helena.ca.us/planning/page/ceqa-document-center. • Hunter Subdivision Project Revised EIR, October 2017
• City of St. Helena 1993 General Plan, adopted September 28, 1993 • City of St. Helena General Plan Update 2040, adopted June 2019 • St. Helena Municipal Code, updated through October 2020

1.2 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
Lead Agency
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15367, the City of St. Helena has been designated the “lead agency,” which is defined as the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or disapproving a project.” The lead agency is also responsible for determining the scope of the environmental analysis, preparing the EIR, and responding to comments received on the Draft EIR. Prior to making a decision to approve a 1 For consistency, the “General Plan Update 2040” document is referred to in this EIR as the “2019 General Plan”.

Agenda Item #6.2.

1 - INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 1-3
project, the lead agency is required to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision-making body has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.

Responsible Agencies
Responsible agencies are state and local public agencies, other than the lead agency, that have some authority to carry out or approve a project or that are required to approve a portion of the project or approve a permit for which a lead agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Initial Study/Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15813). The following agencies would potentially act as responsible agencies for the purposes of this Proposed Project:
• San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board. Ensures compliance with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for any stormwater discharge associated with construction activity.
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Oversees air quality and has the authority to require mitigation fees.

Trustee Agencies
Trustee agencies are designated public agencies with legal jurisdiction over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of California and that would be affected by a project, whether or not the agencies have authority to approve or implement the project (CEQA Guidelines Section15386). The following agency was identified as a trustee agency with potential jurisdiction over the Proposed Project:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife

1.3 EIR PROCESS
Notice of Preparation
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated for public and agency review from March 6, 2018 through April 9, 2018 (included as Appendix A). The purpose of the NOP is to provide notification that an EIR for the Proposed Project was being prepared and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the document. A summary of the comments received on the NOP is included in the Executive Summary, as well as in the introduction of each technical section.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the lead agency held a public scoping meeting on March 12, 2018. Responsible agencies and members of the public were invited to attend and provide input on the scope of the EIR. Comments from agencies and the public in response to Agenda Item #6.2.

1 - INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 1-4
the NOP are provided in Appendix A. General concerns and issues raised in response to the NOP are summarized in the Executive Summary and addressed in this Draft EIR.

Draft EIR and Public Review
This Draft EIR is being circulated for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. During this period, the general public, organizations, and public agencies can submit comments to the lead agency on the Draft EIR’s accuracy and completeness. Release of this Draft EIR marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105. The 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR will be from September 23, 2021 through November 8, 2021. The public can review the Draft EIR at the following address during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) or on the City’s website at www.cityofsthelena.org.

City of St. Helena
Planning Division
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
The City encourages all comments on the Draft EIR be submitted in writing. All comments or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Maya DeRosa, AICP, Planning and Building Director
City of St. Helena Planning Division
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
(707) 967-2783
[email protected]
Final EIR and EIR Certification
Upon completion of the Draft EIR public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared that will include written comments on the Draft EIR received during the public review period and the City’s responses to those comments. The Final EIR will also include the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code.

The Final EIR will address any revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to agency or public comments. The Draft EIR and Final EIR together will comprise the EIR for the Proposed Project.

Before the City can review the Proposed Project for approval, it must first certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council would also be required to adopt Findings of Fact and a Statement of Agenda Item #6.2.

1 - INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 1-5
Overriding Considerations (if any significant and unavoidable impacts are identified). If no significant and unavoidable impacts (assuming the City Council finds all proposed mitigation measures to be feasible), are identified the City Council would not be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if it approves the Proposed Project (see also Public Resources Code Section 21081).

EIR Adequacy
The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states the following:

An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible.

Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.

1.4 SCOPE OF THE DRAFT EIR
This Draft EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the procedures for implementation of CEQA set forth in the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.).

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, an EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from implementation of a proposed project. This EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts that may occur from construction and operation of the Proposed Project, including direct, indirect, cumulative, and growth-inducing impacts.

Based on a review of the Proposed Project and comments received during the NOP public review period, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared that addresses the following technical issue areas:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
Agenda Item #6.2.

1 - INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 1-6
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use
• Noise and Vibration
• Public Services/Recreation
• Public Utilities
• Transportation and Circulation
• Energy
This EIR evaluates the direct impacts, reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts resulting from planning, construction, and operation of the Proposed Project using the most current information available and in accordance with the provisions set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the EIR recommends potentially feasible mitigation measures, where possible, and Proposed Project alternatives that would reduce or eliminate significant adverse environmental effects.

The alternatives chapter of the EIR (Chapter 5, Project Alternatives) was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Proposed Project alternatives are not required, if no significant environmental impacts would occur.

The EIR evaluates the following alternatives to the Proposed Project:

Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative. This alternative assumes no development would occur, and the site would remain in its current undeveloped condition.

Alternative 2: No Project/General Plan Alternative. This alternative assumes development would occur consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning.

Alternative 3: Park Preserve Alternative. This alternative includes a 1-acre park that would preserve a majority of the on-site wetlands and would include the same number of units as the Proposed Project, including the affordable housing units and accessory dwelling units.

Agenda Item #6.2.

1 - INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 1-7
Alternative 4: Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative. This alternative includes a 1-acre park along with up to 180 affordable housing units.

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT EIR
Chapter 2, Executive Summary—Summarizes the elements of the Proposed Project and the environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the Proposed Project and provides a table that lists impacts, describes proposed mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts before and after mitigation.

Chapter 1, Introduction and Scope of the Draft EIR—Provides an introduction and overview of the EIR process and describes the intended use of the EIR and the review process.

Chapter 2, Project Description—Provides a detailed description of the Proposed Project, including its location, background information, Project objectives, and technical characteristics.

Chapter 3, Introduction to the Analysis—Describes the baseline environmental setting and provides an assessment of potential Proposed Project impacts for each technical issue area presented. Each section is divided into four sub-sections: Introduction, Environmental Setting, Regulatory Background, and Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Proposed Project– specific and cumulative).

Chapter 4, CEQA Considerations—Provides information required by CEQA regarding impacts that would result from the Proposed Project, including a summary of cumulative impacts, secondary impacts including potential impacts resulting from growth inducement, and significant irreversible changes to the environment.

Chapter 5, Project Alternatives—Describes and compares the Proposed Project alternatives to the Proposed Project.

Chapter 6, EIR Preparers—Lists report authors who provided technical assistance in the preparation and review of the EIR.

Appendices—Includes various documents and data that support the analysis presented in the Draft EIR.

Agenda Item #6.2.

1 - INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 1-8

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.2.

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-1
CHAPTER 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 INTRODUCTION
Ben and Kelly Vanzutphen (Project applicants) have requested approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map. This proposed subdivision, which is the only discretionary action being considered by the City of St. Helena (City) at this time, would form the basis for the proposed Hunter Subdivision Project (Proposed Project), which is the “project” examined in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Development of the Proposed Project would require the approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map and several subsequent discretionary approvals, as outlined under Section 2.6 later in this chapter.

The Proposed Project’s reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant adverse environmental effects are evaluated in this EIR.

Consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15124, this chapter includes: the location and boundaries of the Proposed Project, as shown on a project location map and on a regional map; a statement of the objectives sought by the Proposed Project; a general description of the Proposed Project’s environmental characteristics, supporting public facilities; and a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of public agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision making, and a list of permits and approvals required to implement the Proposed Project.

Information has been provided by the Proposed Project applicant and City planning staff. The following project description serves as the basis for the environmental analysis contained in this EIR. The City will serve as the lead agency with final authority to certify the EIR and approve the Proposed Project (both the Tentative Subdivision Map and subsequent approvals).

2.1 PROJECT SITE
Location and Surrounding Land Uses
The 16.9-acre Project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number is 009-030-057) is located in the northeast portion of the City, at the eastern terminus of Adams Street, three blocks east of downtown and State Route 29 (SR 29), and west of the Napa River, as shown in Figure 2‐1, Regional Location.

The Project site is generally rectangular with a “panhandle” extension that connects the site to Adams Street west of the panhandle, as shown in Figure on Figure 2-2, Project Location.

Adjacent land uses include single-family and multi-family residential development to the south, including the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park and the Hunt’s Grove Apartments. Office uses Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-2
are located immediately adjacent to the site’s most western edge at the terminus of Adams Street. Undeveloped land currently under cultivation is located to the north and northwest. A single-family residence along with a barn and accessory dwelling unit is currently (May 2021) under construction to the west/north of the Project site. A gravel maintenance road used by the public as an informal trail borders the site along the north/northwest boundary along with a separate public trail located on the north/northwest side of the maintenance road (referred to as the “maintenance road/public trail”), and a City storm water detention basin borders the site to the south/southeast. A drainage ditch is located along the northern edge of the property. Figure 2-3 depicts existing and adjacent land uses.

The open space located north and east of the site is part of the St. Helena Comprehensive Flood Protection Project (Flood Protection Project). The Napa River flows from northwest to southeast approximately 500 feet north/northeast of the Proposed Project boundary.

Existing Uses and On-Site Characteristics
Approximately 40% (6 acres) in the southwestern portion of the Project site is under cultivation with a vineyard. Approximately one acre of vineyard is located in the western ‘”panhandle” portion of the Project site. The remainder of the site is undeveloped. An existing agricultural well is located near the southeastern end of the Project site, adjacent to proposed lot 19 of the Tentative Subdivision Map, shown as Parcel B on the proposed Tentative Map (see Figure 2-4).

Based on the Proposed Project’s grading plan, the elevation across the Project site as developed would range from approximately 230 feet above mean sea level (amsl) on its southern edge to approximately 212 feet amsl on its northern edge. The portion of the site planned for the extension of Adams Street ranges from 243 feet amsl to 230 feet amsl.

An existing 10-foot wide public water line easement containing an active 12-inch water line bisects the north/northeast portion of the site. This easement is proposed to be abandoned as part of the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map and the water line relocated.

The existing gravel maintenance road/public trail that starts at the end of Adams Street and borders the Project site along the north/northwest is a popular walking trail for City residents.

Several small Valley Oak trees are present along the eastern boundary of the site along Del Rio Court that would not be removed as part of the Proposed Project. In addition, there is a drainage ditch located in this area and also along a portion of the eastern Proposed Project boundary. The Proposed Project would not impact these existing ditches.

Agenda Item #6.2.

29 Regional Location
Hunter Subdivision Project
SOURCE: Napa County 2015, USDA 2016
Date: 4/30/2019 - Last saved by: mwatson - Path: Z:\Projects\j1083901\MAPDOC\PD\Figure2-1_RegionalLocation.mxd 01 600 ,200
Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 2-1
American
Canyon
Napa
Yountville
St.

Helena
Calistoga
Napa
County
Lake County
Sonoma County
Yolo County
Marin County
Solano County
101
116
16 121
175
113
12 12
128
1 29
128
80 680
505
5 Project Site
Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-4

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.2.

Date: 3/9/2021 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1083901\MAPDOC\PD\Figure2-2_ProjectLocation.mxd Hollis Ln
Starr Ave
Library Ln
June Ln
Harvest Ln
Paulson Ct
San Juan Ct
Signorelli Cir
Del Campo Ct
Paseo Grand Dr
Laguna Seca Ct
Del Rio
Ct
Adams St
Chiles Ave
Meadowcreek C ir
Fulton Ln
Hunt Ave
Pope St
Project Location
Hunter Subdivision Project
SOURCE: USDA 2016, USGS 2018, Napa County 2015
0 165 330Feet
Project Boundary
St. Helena City Boundary
FIGURE 2-2
Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-6

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.2.

Date: 3/12/2021 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1083901\MAPDOC\PD\Figure2-3_AdjacentLandUses.mxd Saint Helena
Public Library
Vineyard Valley
Mobile Home
Hunt’s Grove
Apartments
Offices
Vineyard
Well
Existing
Construction
Detention
Basin
Maintenance Rd/Public Trail
Hollis Ln
Starr Ave
Harvest Ln
Peppertree Cir
June Ln
Paulson Ct
Railroad Ave
San Juan Ct
Library Ln
Del Campo Ct
Redondo
Ct
Del Rio
Ct
Paseo Grand Dr
Signorelli Cir
LagunaSecaCt
Meadowcreek Cir
Adams St
Chiles Ave
Hunt Ave
Fulton Ln
Silverado Trail North
Pope St
N a p a
R i v e r
Existing On-Site and Adjacent Land Uses
Hunter Subdivision Project
SOURCE: USDA 2016, USGS 2018, Napa County 2015
0 200 400Feet
Project Boundary
St. Helena City Boundary
FIGURE 2-3
Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-8

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.2.

CHECKED
DRAWN

DESIGNED
DATE
JOB NO.

APPD REVISIONS BY DATE NO.
+ 1980
est.
1515 FOURTH STREET
NAPA, CALIF. 94559
OFFICE
***.RSAcivil.com
|252.3301707|
+

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

ST HELENA CALIFORNIA

C O V E R S H E E T

T E N T A T I V E M A P

H U N T E R S U B D I V I S I O N

S T H E L E N A C A L I F O R N I A
Proposed Tentative Map
Hunter Subdivision Project
FIGURE 2-4 SOURCE: RSA 2019

Agenda Item #6.2.
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-10

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Agenda Item #6.2.
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-11
There are no significant natural features on the site, and the City has not officially designated any significant viewsheds that would be affected by development of the site.

Project Background
The majority of the Project site was acquired by Dennis Hunter in 1997. Planning efforts were first initiated for developing the property in 2005. In 2008, the City and Mr. Hunter agreed to a land trade and a lot line adjustment to facilitate the City’s Flood Protection Project (see below), resulting in the current configuration of the Project site in 2009. Mr. Hunter allowed the placement of excess fill material from the Flood Protection Project on the site.

The applicant’s planning for the Project site was reinitiated later in September 2010, and an application was filed with the City for a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the property for residential development. The application was accepted as complete by the City on March 28, 2011.

In 2011, the City completed construction of the Flood Protection Project which consisted of river channel improvements, a levee, and floodwall construction along the Napa River adjacent to the Project site. The Flood Protection Project was designed and constructed to meet or exceed all design criteria for Federal, State and local flood control projects. In December 2011, the City submitted an application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to request a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) that would revise the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map and Flood Insurance Study report for the area subject to the Flood Protection Project.

FEMA completed its review of the LOMR and officially revised the FIRM that covers the Project site and effectively removed the Project site from the 100-year flood hazard area. The effective date of the revised FIRM is November 5, 2012. The Project site is now designated Zone X, which FEMA identifies as an area with a moderate to low risk of flooding due to a levee failure and is considered protected from a 100-year flood event (FEMA 2018).

In 2012, the City prepared an EIR to evaluate the Proposed Project1 and in 2013 the Proposed Project came before the City’s Planning Commission for review. The Planning Commission did not take action on the Proposed Project and the item was continued.

Additional information was submitted by the Proposed Project applicant, which resulted in the need to revise and update the Draft EIR.
1 As noted earlier, the Proposed Project requires the approval of the proposed tentative subdivision map and several subsequent discretionary actions. These subsequent actions are discussed later in this chapter.

Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-12
City of St. Helena 1993 General Plan and 2019 General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning The Project site was designated for residential development in the 1975 City of St. Helena General Plan , as Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the City of St. Helena 1993 General Plan, and is designated MDR in the City’s recently adopted “General Plan Update 2040” (the 2019 General Plan). Because the tentative map application was submitted in September 2010 and deemed complete by the City in 2011, this EIR uses the 1993 General Plan as the applicable general plan for the purposes of evaluating the Proposed Project, since this version of the plan was in effect in 2011. This EIR also evaluates consistency with the City’s current General Plan (adopted 2019) for informational and consistency purposes.

The 1993 General Plan described the MDR land use category as follows:

Medium Density Residential (MDR). The MDR designation provides for single-family detached and attached homes, secondary residential units, public and semi-public uses, and similar and compatible uses. Residential densities shall be in the range of 5.1 to 12.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The MDR designation is the predominant residential designation, occurring throughout large areas of the City. The wide distribution of this designation is intended to maintain a development pattern in newly developing areas that is consistent with historic development patterns.

The current (adopted 2019) General Plan describes the MDR land use category as follows:

Medium Density Residential (MDR). The MDR land use designation includes singlefamily attached and detached homes, and compatible uses. This designation permits residential densities between 5.1 and 16.0 dwelling units per acre. Retained from the 1993 General Plan, the MDR designation is the City’s predominant residential designation and it is intended to maintain a development pattern in St. Helena’s higher density areas that is consistent with historic development patterns.

Both versions of the General Plan contain the same basic description of the MDR land use category, except for the maximum density. Under the 1993 General Plan, this land use designation permits densities of 5.1 to 12.0 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) which would allow a maximum of 202 dwelling units assuming a density of 12.0 du/acre. The 2019 General Plan maintains the same MDR land use designation but allows a maximum density of 16 du/acre, which would allow a maximum of 270 dwelling units.

In order to comply with the General Plan, development on the site must include at least 87 dwelling units. The applicant intends to meet this requirement with a combination of 51 single family homes (to be built on the 51 single family lots created by the proposed subdivision), attached multi-family units on lot 52 of the subdivision, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-13
The zoning designation for the Project site is also Medium Density Residential (MR). The MR district implements the MDR General Plan designation. The MR district is described in the current Zoning Code as follows:

The MR district is established for consistency with the medium density residential general plan designation. The district provides for single-family detached homes, accessory dwelling units, limited agricultural uses and compatible uses. Residential densities shall not be less than 5.1 dwelling units per acre nor more than sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre.

Uses in the MR zoning district include single-family detached homes, ADUs, limited agricultural uses and compatible uses. The MR district also allows attached duplex and triplex units, condominiums, and townhouses, and similar uses with a conditional use permit.

Included within the MR zoning is a density bonus that may be given for housing projects that are affordable for persons of very low, low, or moderate income (Chapter 17.40, Section

17.40.60 (F)). The applicant has not requested consideration of a density bonus as part of the Proposed Project application.

The City’s General Plan Housing Element Update 2015-2023 was revised and last updated in May 2015. The City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element identifies the site as vacant and underutilized (City of St. Helena 2015b, p.133, Table 43).

2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
CEQA requires an EIR to include a statement of objectives for a project, including the underlying purpose of the project. These objectives help the lead agency determine the alternatives to evaluate in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15124(a)). The following is a list of objectives for the Proposed Project:
• Subdivide the site consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning for the site to accommodate residential development.
• Provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types, including multi-family, singlefamily, and accessory dwelling units, affordable to a range of incomes including, very low, low and moderate-income households.
• Provide opportunities to contribute to the provision of workforce and affordable housing consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). • Minimize traffic-related environmental impacts, such as noise, air quality and greenhouse gases by lowering commute patterns for St. Helena workers by providing more local housing opportunities.

Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-14
• Support alternative transportation by providing a pedestrian and bicycle linkage through St. Helena, eventually connecting the regional Vine Trail from Calistoga to the Vallejo Ferry.
• Exceed the City’s green building ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.53) and incorporate sustainable design features including water conservation measures, drought resistant landscaping with low flow watering systems, south and west side tree placement to reduce reliance on air conditioning units, and pre-wiring for photovoltaic systems.
• Implement the General Plan Circulation Element by completing the planned extension of Starr Avenue and the partial planned extension of Adams Street from where Adams Street terminates to connect to the Project site.
• Minimize City water use by continuing the use of an existing on-site water well for irrigation of Proposed Project landscaped areas.

2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
The Proposed Project applicant has applied for a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the site into 51 lots (sized for single-family residences), a 3.4-acre parcel, and two lettered lots: a

0.06-acre parcel (Parcel “A”) and a 0.04-acre parcel (Parcel “B”), as shown in Figure 2-4, Proposed Tentative Map.

Beyond the Tentative Subdivision Map application before the City at this time, the Proposed Project applicant has stated their intent to ultimately develop the 51 lots with 51 single-family, market-rate residences. Additionally, homes on 11 of the 51 lots would be developed with an ADU as part of their initial construction. Affordability of the attached units would be addressed in an Affordable Housing Agreement which would require approval by the City Council subsequent to approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map.

The applicant intends to ultimately develop the 3.4-acre parcel with 25 attached multifamily residential units. The affordability of these multi-family units will be the subject of the future Affordable Housing Agreement. A conceptual layout of how the multifamily units could be designed is shown in Figure 2-4A. However, this layout has not been formally submitted and is not under consideration for approval at this time.

The applicant has not expressed any intent to develop the 0.06-acre Parcel A.

Agenda Item #6.2.

CHECKED
DRAWN

DESIGNED
DATE
JOB NO.

APPD REVISIONS BY DATE NO.
+ 1980
est.
1515 FOURTH STREET
NAPA, CALIF. 94559
OFFICE
***.RSAcivil.com
|252.3301707|
+

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

ST HELENA CALIFORNIA

C O V E R S H E E T

T E N T A T I V E M A P

H U N T E R S U B D I V I S I O N

S T H E L E N A C A L I F O R N I A
Proposed Tentative Map with Conceptual Multi-Family Layout Hunter Subdivision Project
FIGURE 2-4a SOURCE: RSA 2019

Agenda Item #6.2.
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-16

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Agenda Item #6.2.
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-17
The 0.04-acre Parcel B is being created to accommodate an existing agricultural well, which would be retained and used to irrigate onsite landscaped areas. No other development would take place on Parcel B.

The Proposed Project applicant’s ultimate intended development of the site would require several subsequent discretionary approvals—beyond the current application for a Tentative Subdivision Map—that are not before the City at this time. Nevertheless, to ensure full analysis of what is reasonably foreseeable, this EIR analyzes the applicant’s ultimate intended development of the site as the Proposed Project.

Table 2-1 provides a breakdown of the total development proposed by the applicant.

Table 2-1
Proposed Project Land Use
Proposed Land Use Zoning Acres
Residential
Units
Average
Density (du/ac)
Single Family Residences MR 13.4 51
Accessory Dwelling Units1 11
Attached Units2 MR 3.4 25
Undeveloped MR .06 --
Agricultural Well Site MR .04 --
Project Total 16.93 87 5.1
Source: Hunter Subdivision Tentative Map 2021.

Notes:
1 Accessory units would be constructed by the applicant/developer concurrently on 11 of the single-family lots.

2. Attached units include duplex or triplex units would be included within Lot 52. 3 Numbers above add to 17 due to rounding. Site area is 16.9 acres.

The 87 residential units (51 single family homes, 25 attached units, 11 ADUs) would provide for an average density of 5.1 du/ac. Because the General Plan establishes a minimum density for the MDR land use category, this is the minimum number of units which can be constructed on the Project site. (The 2019 General Plan allows up to 16 units per acre, for a maximum potential buildout of 270 units.)
As shown on the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, the single-family lots would range in size between approximately 7,000 and 12,000 square feet, with most of the lots in the 7,000 to 8,000 square foot range. A number of irregular shaped lots would be located along the eastern edge of the Project site and along the cul-de-sac (see Figure 2-4).

Each lot would have a minimum size of 7,000 square and a minimum width of 70 feet, per the standards of the MR zoning district. The development standards of the MR zoning district require a minimum 20-foot front and rear setback, and a 10-foot setback on the sides (or a 20- Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-18
foot setback in a street side yard). The MR zoning establishes a maximum height for principal dwellings of 30 feet (allowing for a 2-story home). Any accessory structure, such as an ADU, would be limited to a maximum height of 15 feet.

The 3.4-acre parcel (Lot 52), is proposed to be developed with 25 attached multifamily housing units including 30,000 to 45,000 total square feet of building area. The applicant’s conceptual design for Lot 52 shows two-story, two-bedroom units each with a single-car garage and an onsite parking space plus covered guest parking spaces. A conceptual layout of the Lot 52 site along with conceptual renderings of the structures are shown in Figures 2-5 and 2-6. A specific design for these units has not been filed with the City and would be the subject of a future Design Review application.

Access to Lot 52 would be provided from Adams Street and a driveway connection to Starr Avenue, which would be extended to intersect Adams Street north of the Project site.

As discussed in Section 2.4, below, construction of detached and attached residential units would require design review approval by the Planning Commission, while development of the attached residential units would also require approval of a conditional use permit.

Affordable Units
The Proposed Project applicant has proposed to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City for the 25 multi-family units. The agreement will stipulate how these units would be managed (such as by the Proposed Project applicant or a non-profit organization) to ensure the required affordability requirements are met and maintained over the term of the agreement.

The Affordable Housing Agreement is still being discussed by the City and the Proposed Project applicant and is not proposed or required for review and approval with the Tentative Subdivision Map. A final Affordable Housing agreement approved by the City Council would be required prior to recordation of a final subdivision map.

Accessory Dwelling Units
The City’s Zoning Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 17.116.030) and state law provides for the construction of an ADU on any lot which is zoned for residential use and has an existing single-family residence. Such units may be rented (for a period of not less than 30 days) but may not be sold separately from the main residence. As discussed earlier in this section, the Proposed Project applicant proposes to construct 11 ADUs on 11 of the 51 single family lots created by the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map.

Agenda Item #6.2.

Agenda Item #6.2.
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-20

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.2.

Conceptual Rendering of Multi-Family Housing
Hunter Subdivision Project
FIGURE 2-6 SOURCE: Ben Vanzutphen 2018
Path: Z:\Projects\j1083901\MAPDOC\PD

Agenda Item #6.2.
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-22

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-23
Construction of an ADU would require only ministerial approval on any lot which contains a single-family residence (as is the case in all residentially zoned lots in the City which contain one single-family residence).

The Proposed Project is proposing 11 ADUs which equates to approximately 22% of the total number of single-family residences. By comparison, applications for ADUs in St Helena between 2013 and 2020 totaled approximately 37, equal to about 1.7% of all single-family residences in the city.

Population
The City uses a persons per household factor of 2.45 people per unit for medium/higher density residential land uses (City of St. Helena 2013). Using this factor, the 87 units in the applicant’s development proposal (including ADUs) would conservatively generate 213 residents.2 Site Access and On-site Circulation
Development of the Project site would require the extension of Adams Street and Starr Avenue onto the Project site to provide two points of ingress and egress, as shown in Figure 2-4.

Adams Street would be extended from the terminus of the existing roadway approximately 550 feet to the northeast, ending at the Project site and connecting to the Project’s internal roadway network. The southwestern portion of the existing gravel maintenance road at the end of Adam’s Street would be modified by the Proposed Project to enable access to the Project site. The remainder of the maintenance road would remain a gravel road (see Figure 2-4). The existing trail parallel to the maintenance road would remain and would not be altered by the Proposed Project. Sidewalks would be installed on both sides of the Adams Street extension along with a 6-foot wide planting strip.

Starr Avenue would be extended approximately 165 feet northward from Hunt Avenue, crossing a City-owned parcel before entering the Project site and connecting to the Project’s internal roadway network before ultimately intersecting with the extension of Adams Street. Sidewalks would be installed on both sides of the Adams Street extension along with a 6-foot wide planting strip.

The extension of Starr Avenue would divide the site into two portions. The western portion would include five single-family lots and the 3.4-acre multi-family lot. The eastern portion would include the other 46 single-family lots, the 0.06-acre remainder parcel “A” and the 0.04-acre parcel “B” for the agricultural well.
2 Note: ADUs typically are occupied by 1 or 2 people; therefore, it is anticipated fewer than 213 people would occupy the Proposed Project upon completion.

Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-24
The portion of the site south of the proposed Adams Street extension consists of approximately one acre of existing vineyards, which would be preserved as part of the Proposed Project.

The Adams Street extension is currently a City-owned right-of-way. The Proposed Project applicant would dedicate the additional right-of-way necessary for the extensions of Adams Street and Starr Avenue and would be responsible for construction of the two public road extensions. All new streets would be designed and constructed consistent with existing City street standards.

As shown on Figure 2-4, three new local streets (Streets A, B, and C) are proposed within the Project site. Single-family lots would be located on the south side of Street A, and on both sides of Streets B, C and the Starr Avenue extension.

As shown on the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map (Figure 2-4), the proposed width of the Adams Street and Starr Avenue extensions is 60 feet, consistent with the City’s minor residential street standard. Streets A, B, and C would be 56 feet wide and would allow parking on both sides. All streets would include curb, gutter, and 4-foot-wide sidewalks and 6-foot wide planting strips on both sides of the street.

The Proposed Project would provide sidewalks for pedestrians. Bicyclists would use the on-site streets. The Proposed Project would also support subsequent extensions to provide nonvehicular access. Streets A, B, and C would be constructed by the Proposed Project applicant and dedicated to the City.

Emergency vehicle access would be provided via the extension of Adams Street, Starr Avenue, and an emergency vehicle access (EVA) to the existing gravel maintenance road that borders the north/northwest boundary of the Project site. The EVA would prohibit through traffic by installing bollards or other devices to prevent vehicle access. In the event of an emergency the City’s Fire and/or Police department would access a knox box to unlock the bollards or other device to allow vehicle access.

On-street parking would be permitted along all Proposed Project streets including the extension of Starr Avenue and Adams Street.

No Class 1 (off-street bike path) or Class II (on-street striped) bikes lanes would be included as part of the Proposed Project.

Landscaping and Lighting
The applicant’s proposed landscape plan includes approximately 185 trees, including 24-inch box scarlet maple (Acer Rubrum), Chinese pistache (Pistacia Chinensis) and tulip tree (Liriodendron Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-25
Tulipifera), as shown on Figure 2-7. Approximately 74 scarlet maple trees would be planted along the Adams Street extension to the intersection with Starr Avenue and along the Starr Avenue extension. Approximately 57 Chinese pistache trees would be planted along Street A.

Approximately 54 tulip trees would be planted along Street B and the Street C cul-de-sac.

Trees would be planted mostly in rows of two to five with 10 feet of separation from streetlights.

On the western edge of Starr Avenue the Scarlet Maples are proposed in a solid row of nine trees between Street A and Street B. Sidewalk planting strips would have hydro seed native grasses and drought tolerant plantings between the trees that are adapted to the City’s climate.

The existing vineyards on the Project site would be removed with the exception of an approximately one-acre portion of the vineyard that would remain located in the westernmost “panhandle” portion of the site.

All public landscaping and irrigation would be required to meet the California Code of Regulations Title 23. Chapter 2.7 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements.

The Proposed Project includes 28.5-foot-tall standard streetlights along all residential streets.

A Homeowners Association (HOA) would oversee maintenance of public landscaping, including the approximately one-acre vineyard located in the southwestern “panhandle” portion of the site, and streetlights. The streetlights would be designed to conform with Lighting Zone 2 of Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations.

Walls/Fences
Per the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, the rear yard of Lots 1 through 51 would include a 6-foot high wood fence for privacy. A retaining wall that varying in height from 2 to 4 feet is proposed along the rear property line of Lots 5 through 22. The wall would be constructed of concrete masonry block.

Infrastructure Improvements and Public Services
Water, sewer, and storm drain services would be provided by the City. The Proposed Project would include new water, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure on site to serve the residential development designed in compliance with City specifications. The Project site is currently not served by City utilities. There is an existing groundwater well in the eastern area of the site (on proposed Lot 19). The Proposed Project’s on-site water, sewer, and storm drain lines are proposed to be located within the street/driveway rights-of-way within the Project site.

Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-26
Water Supply
With the abandonment of the 10-foot public water main easement and the existing 12-inch water main within this easement, a 12-inch public water main would be realigned and constructed by the City, proposed to be within the Starr Avenue right-of-way, as shown on Tentative Map page TM5.

The existing 12-inch water line traverses the site generally north/south to the east of Starr Avenue within a 10-foot easement; this line would be relocated as part of development of the site.

The Project is proposing a looped 8-inch water main within Streets A and B that would connect to the existing water main at two locations. A new 8-inch water main is also proposed within the extension of Adams Street to connect to the existing water main at the southwest end of the Project site. As noted above, an existing 12-inch water line would also be relocated within the site to provide continued service to customers.

Fire hydrants and other appurtenances would be located and installed pursuant to City standards.

An existing agricultural well is located near the eastern end of the Project site that is proposed to be maintained in place (in proposed Lot 19) and used to provide non-potable irrigation of all on-site landscaping areas, including private front and rear yards. The well is proposed by the Project applicant to be owned and maintained by a homeowners’ association or similar method; public ownership or operation is not proposed. A lot is shown on the proposed tentative map for the well site and access to the local street for maintenance, power, and water lines.

Water lines would be extended within the Project site from the agricultural well to serve the landscaped areas in the public right-of-way, at the individual homes and the future multi-family site, and the retained vineyard.

The Proposed Project would be designed not to exceed 0.4 acre-feet/year/dwelling unit of water based on the installation of increasingly efficient and lower-water-using fixtures and appliances and irrigation systems. For further detail on the Proposed Project’s water demands, see Section

3.12, Public Services/Recreation and Section 3.13, Utilities. For information specific to the agricultural well and use of this well to provide the Project’s landscape irrigation requirements, please see Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Agenda Item #6.2.

Landscape Plan
Hunter Subdivision Project
FIGURE 2-7
Path: \Projects\j1083901\MAPDOC\EIR\Aesthetics Page 1017 of 4069 Agenda Item #6.2.
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-28

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-29
Sewer System
Wastewater flows from the western end of the Project site are proposed to drain into an existing public manhole at the corner of Starr and Hunt Avenue via new 8-inch sewer pipes, as shown on Tentative Map page TM5. The area east of Starr Avenue, lower in elevation, is proposed to drain east through the Project site via new 8-inch sewer pipes, through Lot 21 within a public easement and into an existing public manhole on the adjacent parcel in the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park. The Proposed Project would install 8-inch sewer lines within all roadways to service the residences.

All sewer mains are sized to accommodate Proposed Project flows, per City standards, and designed at slopes to provide required self-cleaning velocities. Sewer laterals would be installed per City specifications.

Storm Drainage and Stormwater Quality
The Proposed Project would connect to existing storm drain infrastructure. New storm drain lines would be installed in Streets A, B, C and Adams Street. As shown on Tentative Map page TM 5, the southwesterly portion of the Project site is proposed to drain via gutter flow and proposed storm drain pipes and discharge into the existing Starr Avenue storm drain at several different locations. The rest of the Proposed Project is proposed to drain to the northeast via gutter flow and storm drain pipes and discharge into the existing detention basin. The City requires that all storm drain pipes be sized to accommodate a 10-year storm within the pipe and 100-year storm within the street section.

Police and Fire Services
The Project site would be served by the St. Helena Police Department located at 1480 Main Street in St. Helena. The Police Department provides law enforcement services within the city limits and maintains 24-hour security patrol throughout the community. Fire protection services are provided by the St. Helena Fire Department located on the same site as the police department, which is less than a ¼-mile from the Project site. The fire department provides fire protection services within the city limits, including fire suppression, fire prevention, education, emergency medical and rescue services, and response to incidents involving hazardous materials.

Schools
The Proposed Project site is located within the St. Helena Unified School District, which operates four schools, including a primary school, elementary school, middle school, and a high school. The Proposed Project would be required to pay school impact fees to the School District at the time of building permit issuance.

Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-30
Solid Waste Disposal
Upper Valley Disposal provides solid waste services to residents and businesses in the City.

Solid waste is disposed of at the Clover Flat Landfill, a Class III landfill site, located off Silverado Trail north of the City.

Natural Gas, Electricity, Cable, and Telephone
The Proposed Project also includes natural gas, electrical, cable television, and telephone to serve proposed development. Natural gas is provided by PG&E and electric services would be provided by PG&E or MCE Clean Energy Community Choice Electricity program. Telephone service would be provided by AT&T and cable and internet services would be provided by a variety of providers including Xfinity, AT&T, and Valley Internet.

Offsite Improvements
Off-site improvements required for the Proposed Project include extending Starr Avenue approximately 165-feet to connect to the Project site and extending Adams Street approximately 550-feet to provide access to the site.

An emergency access for fire equipment would also be built to connect Street A with the existing maintenance road. All of these improvements would take place on land owned by the City.

Construction Details, Phasing, and Timeline
The applicant has not prepared a proposed phasing plan. According to the applicant, buildout of the Proposed Project would occur based on market conditions and the timeliness of obtaining building permits. The City may require the site be graded and construction of the backbone infrastructure be completed for the entire site as the first phase; however, the details of the Project’s phasing plan have not yet been finalized.

If the Tentative Subdivision Map is approved and the applicant seeks and obtains all other required approvals, it is assumed the first phase of construction would require site clearing, grading, and trenching for utilities followed by construction of the roadways and residences.

For the purposes of the analysis it is assumed construction of homes would occur over a 6+ year period with the exception of the multi-family units, which the applicant proposes to build within a year of approval of Design Review, Use Permit to construct the units, and approval of the Final Subdivision Map.

Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-31
Grading
Grading of the site would create a gradual downward slope from west to east towards the existing City storm water detention basin. To level the site and to ensure a stable base for new development, the existing fill/soils on the site would be removed, recompacted and returned to the site along with additional fill. The finish grade of most of the area east of Starr Avenue would be increased over the existing grade by the placement of approximately 1.5 to 2.5 feet of fill material; west of Starr Avenue the finish grade would be approximately 1 foot lower than the existing grade. The maximum depth of cut would be approximately 1.5 feet and the maximum depth of fill would be 5.0 feet. A former pond, located in the southeastern portion of the Project site, would require excavation of up to 10 feet due to anticipated settlement.

The estimated net grading quantity, as provided by the Proposed Project applicant, is approximately 24,321 cubic yards of fill to replace the 10,202 cubic yards of cut (RSA 2020). 3 This quantity does not include the spoils from the joint trench, roadways, curb and gutter, or foundations. It is the applicant’s intent to balance the soils on site and not require the export or import of soils. Importing of some material, such as base rock, sand, and peat gravel that is used in the joint trenches, building foundations, and roadways would be required.

A summary of estimated earthwork quantities, provided by the applicant, is shown below.

Table 2-2
Earthwork Summary
Location/Item Cut (CY) Fill (CY)
Site Total 10,202 24,321
Pad Spoils1 5,200
Trench Spoils2 4,500
Vertical Spoils3 3,825
Expansion4 510
Subtotal 24,237 24,321
Import5 84
Total 24,321 24,321
Notes:
1 Pad spoils assumed to be 100 cubic yards (CY) per lot due to post tension slab construction. 2 Trench spoils include water, sewer, storm drain, bioretention, irrigation water from well and joint trench. 3 Vertical spoils assumed at 75 yards per house and includes utility trenching in lot, landscape and final grading excavations to remove dirt from finished pad for drainage purposes.
4 Expansion assumed at 5% of the site total cut amount. 3 Earthwork quantities estimated by the applicant are based solely on a subtraction of finished grades from existing grades. They do not account for implementation of geotechnical recommendations, which based on a preliminary geotechnical study, is likely to consist of over-excavation and recompaction of site soils to an average depth of 4.5 feet as part of site preparation for structural foundations, utility lines and streets. See Section 3.6 (Geology and Soils) for details.

Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-32
5 Net import or export less than 1% of the total volume amount (24,321 CY in this case) can be considered a balanced site.

Source: RSA Engineers, 2021.

Post-Construction Best Management Practices
The following post-construction best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented as part of the Proposed Project:
• Inlet labels “Drain to River”
• Private Street sweeping
• Downspouts to landscape swales
• Vegetated swales
• Homeowner education on storm water pollution prevention • Hydrodynamic oil, water, and solid separation
Construction staging and parking for construction workers would be provided on site.

2.4 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND USE OF THIS EIR
As part of the approval process, the City of St. Helena City Council will need to certify this EIR as meeting the requirements of CEQA and reflecting the independent judgement of the lead agency.

The City would then consider approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map. In order to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map, the City must find that the proposal is consistent with the 1993 General Plan and zoning.

In order for the Proposed Project applicant to commence grading and development of the site and homes, the City would require additional subsequent discretionary approvals including the following:
• Affordable Housing Agreement
• Design Review
• Use Permit required to construct attached multifamily units in MDR District The City Council will also review the Final Map to ensure that all conditions have been satisfied.

Agenda Item #6.2.

2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 2-33
The following permits and approvals4 would be required to implement the Proposed Project, but are considered ministerial actions:
• Encroachment Permit for the road extensions
• Grading and Building Permits
• Water and Sewer Connections
• Other Administrative permits such as temporary and permanent encroachments, traffic management/construction parking, etc., and approvals would be required from other City departments
Responsible and Trustee Agencies
The EIR prepared for the Proposed Project would be used by responsible agencies and trustee agencies that may have some discretionary review or authority over approval of certain Proposed Project elements. Responsible agencies are public agencies, other than the lead agency, that have some approval authority over a project (i.e., issue a permit). Trustee agencies are state agencies having jurisdiction by law over natural resources held in trust for the people of the State of California, as identified in the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed Project applicant would be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits, as required by law. The following responsible agency has been identified:
• San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
The following agency has been identified as a trustee agency:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Effects on special-status species

2.5 REFERENCES
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2018. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette. Accessed September 4, 2018.

City of St. Helena. 1993. City of St. Helena General Plan September 28, 1993. 4 Note: Due to recent legislation under SB 330 (new Gov't Code sec. 66300), cities are prevented from "establishing or implementing any provision that . . . [a]cts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed either annually or for some other period. Thus, the City’s Residential Growth Management System that limits residential development is no longer enforceable so would not apply to this Proposed Project.

Agenda Item #6.2.