Property Owners 1570 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1603 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1615 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1629 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1635 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Vance-Anderson House/St. Gothard's Inn Property Owners 1830 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1846 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1855 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 195 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 933 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1225 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1227 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1269 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1271 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1273 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1275 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1277 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1279 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1281 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1283 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1285 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1287 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1289 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1291 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1293 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1295 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1297 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1299 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1310 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1312 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1314 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1313 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1315 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1316 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1317 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1320 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Agenda Item #11.1.
Property Owners 1332 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1334 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1336 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1338 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1340 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1342 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1339 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1341 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1346 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1350 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1355 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1357 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1371 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1379 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Beringer Winery, Beringer Winery Circulation Routes,
Beringer Winery Stone Wall, Distillery Building, Export Building, North House, Old Winery, Sherry Shack Complex, Tour Center, Beringer Brothers/ Los Hermanos Winery,
Beringer Winery- Sisters' House, Rhine House/ Frederick Beringer, Elm Alley, Hudson House
Property Owners 2000 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Mixon House Property Owners 835 Mccorckle Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 741 McCorkle Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 609 McCorkle Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 681 McCorkle Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 458 Mills Lane St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1326 Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
St. Helena Catholic Church Property Owners 1255 Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 St Helena Public Library Property Owners 1360 Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Klubescheidt House Property Owners 1445 Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Dr. Davis House Property Owners 1467 Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1454 Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1455 Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
A. Forni House Property Owners 1551 Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1329 Pine Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1330 Pine Street St. Helena CA 94574
Agenda Item #11.1.
Property Owners 1340 Pine Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1354 Pine Street St. Helena CA 94574
Jacob Meily Winery, Signorelli Pla. Property Owners 924 Pope Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1006 Pope Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1012 Pope Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1017 Pope Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1024 Pope Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1034 Pope Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1125 Pope Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 834 Pope Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 943 Pope Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 951 Pope Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 330 Pratt Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 376 Pratt Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 514 Pratt Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 855 Pratt Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Taylor Duckworth and Company FoundryBuilding Property Owners 1345 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1347 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Crane-Ramos Sherry Factory Property Owners 1468 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1470 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1472 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1474 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1476 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1478 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Ranger's Residence Property Owners 1572 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1325 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Roma Hotel/Miramonte Hotel Property Owners 1327 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Boy Scout Hall Property Owners 1515 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1550 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1321 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1339 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1341 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1343 Railroad Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Willian Bell House, Clark House Property Owners 1605 Spring Mountain Road St. Helena CA 94574 Gus J ursch House Property Owners 1637 Spring Mountain Road St. Helena CA 94574 Mackinder - Baldwin House Property Owners 1651 Spring Mountain Road St. Helena CA 94574 Agenda Item #11.1.
Property Owners 1623 Spring Mountain Road St. Helena CA 94574 Martinelli House Property Owners 1709 Spring Mountain Road St. Helena CA 94574 William Tell Saloon and Hotel Property Owners 1228 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574 St Helena Native Sons of the Golden... Property Owners 1313 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574 First Presbyterian Church of St Helena Property Owners 1420 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574 Shy House Property Owners 1542 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1226 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1228 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1230 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1232 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1234 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1236 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1238 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1240 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1244 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Grace Church, Grace Episcopal Church Property Owners 1314 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574 Chiles House, First Baptist Church Property Owners 1343 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1508 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1523 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Tilley House Property Owners 1526 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1531 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1635 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
John Kelly House, John Mitchell Property Owners 1735 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1758 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1764 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Schweinitzer House and Winery Property Owners 1817 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1933 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Methodist church Parsonage Property Owners 1944 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1226 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1230 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1232 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1234 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1236 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1238 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1240 Spring Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1230 Stockton Street St. Helena CA 94574 Agenda Item #11.1.
Property Owners 1248 Stockton Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1257 Stockton Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1305 Stockton Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1362 Stockton Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1420 Stockton Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1457 Stockton Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1657 Stockton Street St. Helena CA 94574 Red cottage/Charlotte Chase Starr House Property Owners 1832 Sulphur Springs Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 White cottage/Captain Chase House Property Owners 2252 Sulphur Springs Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 2610 Sulphur Springs Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 St. Helena Catholic Church Property Owners 1340 Tainter Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1413 Tainter Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1421 Tainter Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1509 Tainter Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1513 Tainter Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1556 Tainter Street St. Helena CA 94574 Agenda Item #11.1.
! !
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
Main St
Spring
St
Mills Ln
Pope St
Pratt Ave
Fulton Ln Madrona Ave
Adams St
Vallejo St
Dowdell Ln
Oak Ave
Sulphur Springs Ave
Hunt Ave
Crane Ave
Big Rock Rd
Spring Mountain Rd
Mitchell Dr
Fir Hill Dr
Grayson Ave
Tainter St
Hillview
Pl
Dean York Ln
Mccorkle Ave
Howell Mountain Rd
Park St
Pine St
Hudson Ave
Railroad Ave
Chaix Ln
Sylvaner Ave
College Ave
Charter Oak Ave
Silverado Trl
Pinot Way
Vintage Ave
Valley View St
Brittany Ln
Paseo Grand Dr
Elmhurst Ave
La Fata St
El Bonita Ave
Church St
Boyson Ln
Vidovich Ave
Paulson Ct
Riesling Way
Fountain St
Kidd Ranch Rd
Meadowcreek Cir
Monte Vista Ave
Bella Vista Ct
Wallis Ct
Hudson Ave
City of St. Helena Historic Preservation Overlay Map July 2023 Historic Preservation Overlay
St. Helena City Limits
! ! !
!
! St. Helena Urban Limit
Parcels
® Waterways
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Notes: This Historic Preservation Overlay Map is subject to change and should only be used for reference. For the most up to date information please contact the City of St. Helena Planning Department.
Main St
Sulphur Creek
Agenda Item #11.1.
APN ADDRESS Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
009-150-006 Adams Street Property Central Business / A-20 Central Business 009-261-001 1153 Main Street Central Business Mixed-use009-261-017 1141 Main Street #A Central Business Mixed-use009-261-016 1115 Main Street Central Business Mixed-use009-261-014 1111 Main Street Central Business Mixed-use009-261-006 1107 Main Street Central Business Mixed-use009-261-007 1077 Main Street Central Business Mixed-use009-262-005 1141 Oak Ave. Medium Density Residential High Density Residential009-262-006 1133 Oak Ave. Medium Density Residential High Density Residential009-262-007 1123 Oak Ave. Medium Density Residential High Density Residential009-262-008 1111 Oak Ave. Medium Density Residential High Density Residential009-262-009 1310 Mitchell Dr. Medium Density Residential High Density Residential009-262-010 1318 Mitchell Dr. Medium Density Residential High Density Residential009-262-011 1330 Mitchell Dr. Medium Density Residential High Density Residential009-262-012 1340 Mitchell Dr. Medium Density Residential High Density Residential009-263-014 n/a Business Professional & Office / Service Commercial Mixed-use009-263-005 1301 Mitchell Dr. Central Business Public & Quasi Public009-180-036 933 Main Street Service Commercial Mixed-use009-263-007 945 Main Street Service Commercial Mixed-use009-180-039 931 Main Street Service Commercial Mixed-use009-180-038 929 Main Street Service Commercial Mixed-use009-180-008 905 Main Street Service Commercial Mixed-use009-180-040 709 Main Street Service Commercial Mixed-use009-180-041 633 Main Street Service Commercial Mixed-use009-180-042 641 Main Street Service Commercial Mixed-use009-600-018 1637 Spring Street High Density Residential Medium Density Residential009-600-019 1635 Spring Street High Density Residential Medium Density Residential009-590-009 1563 Spring Street High Density Residential Medium Density Residential009-590-008 1551 Spring Street High Density Residential Medium Density Residential009-590-007 1531 Spring Street High Density Residential Medium Density Residential009-590-006 1523 Spring Street High Density Residential Medium Density Residential009-590-005 1505 Spring Street High Density Residential Medium Density Residential009-590-004 1451 Spring Street High Density Residential Medium Density Residential009-590-001 1437 Spring Street High Density Residential Medium Density Residential009-590-002 1433 Spring Street High Density Residential Medium Density Residential009-600-004 1711 Spring Street High Density Residential Medium Density Residential009-180-016 1376 Grayson Ave. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential List of Properties for Proposed Zoning Map Changes Based on General Plan Change Areas Agenda Item #11.1.
APN ADDRESS Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
009-340-013 1400 Grayson Ave. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 009-340-012 1420 Grayson Ave. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 009-340-002 1434 Grayson Ave. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 009-340-004 1460 Grayson Ave. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 009-340-011 1476 Grayson Ave. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 009-340-005 1492 Grayson Ave. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 009-340-007 1540 Grayson Ave. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 009-340-008 1562 Grayson Ave. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 009-340-010 1590 Grayson Ave. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 009-340-009 1624 Grayson Ave. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 009-280-024 1644 Grayson Ave. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 009-391-020 2798 Spring Street Woodlands and Watershed Low Density Residential009-030-056 Flood Control Parcel Medium Density Residential Open Space 009-192-007 1547 Railroad Ave. Medium Density Residential Mixed-us e
009-192-006 1557 Railroad Ave. Medium Density Residential Mixed-us e
009-192-004 1567 Railroad Ave. Medium Density Residential Mixed-us e
009-192-003 1121 Fulton Ln. Medium Density Residential Mixed-use009-211-016 1480 Main Street Public and Quasi-Public Central Business Map Correction Properties:025-070-029 1501 Big Rock Rd. Woodlands and Watershed Twenty Acre Agriculture009-131-044 2500 Spring Mountain Rd. Woodlands and Watershed Twenty Acre Agriculture009-131-040 2491 Spring Mountain Rd. Woodlands and Watershed Twenty Acre Agriculture Agenda Item #11.1.
! "
#$#% &' (!(
)
*
+
,-
"" )*
.
"
*
)/ !0
1 "'
2
, !
*
' 3
44
5
'6789:;8<=#7>?@ABB?CD;:EF;:G;:EH?IJ?:H;HD7:8KL;D9D97MNONP7:7C<=Q=<:$RS
&T
T
"
"
U"T
U
.
T
.
"
"
U
T T
V U
UV (
U
U
T
T
T
"
T T
/
)/ T
/
U !0
W
-
XU
4Y.
"
,"
+
0
Z44
!&T
Y,+
/
U(
T4) T
!0
)
/
[
U
\
.
"
]
^]_
U
"
)]
^]_4
`U
)
""
U
U
aT
UT
/
T
-
""
U )
!&T
)
U U
"
T
T
"
/ T
V U
U
T T
/ T
W
-
XU
4Y,+!
,
U
/
-
[
T )
U )
U b
"
T
.
`
"
/
T
T)
U
.
"
/ T
)
)cW.
"
U
d
!&T
W
-
4
.U
`
"
.
T
)./
T
)/ !0
U U
T
UU
.
"
)U
/)
U
U
//
U
.
"
!
d
4
T
)/ !0
U
U T
W
-
4
U
/
U Y.
"
,"
+
Y,+
.
UU
/
.
"
"
U
T T
-
!
&T
W
-
4e5
.
U
"
"
U T
T
/
f
U T
U
!/ T
T
"
)
U
"
"
T
V U
T T
[
U
T T
W
-
4
U
/
U
U
!UU
)
"
T
.
U
T
V U
U
/
U
"
"
"/
"
/
T
W
-
4
Ug
!
U
)
4 T
)
U
"
T
.
U
/ T
V U
/
)
T T
W
-
4!
&T"
"
.
T
)/ T
V U
U
T T
W
-
4
UY,+!&T
W
-
WU
U
/ /
)
'bhijklmniopqnrqjsonqpqntuklmvknivmvluil
wmlxlxuruiuqjypyjimzoknivm{uqmirjyymlvjvpuklvomlwmyyz|qlxuqlxun}tuklm~uvnzlxuruiuqjypyjiji{wmyy inln}vlq|kllxumqjlljmisuilc!
Y.
"
+
.
-
X
/
-
"Y,+
T
.
Y
U"
"
/
/
-
"Y,+
T
U
"
/
[
.
.U
U
)"
.
.
"
"
U
U "
U
T
T
U U !-
U T
U
"
T
)
T
T
)/ !0
b
.
T
. )
T T
/ T
5
.
U
) T
-
"Y,+c
YWU
d
4
!
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "#
$
%
&
#
'
() !*
)
$
+
",-. '
%
$
"
'
%
$
'
(/0
+
!)
)
) '
+
",-.
$
%
)
0
+
#
'
(
$
1 $
' '
+
/
$
$
)$
%
"
!2'
0
+
#,-. '
(
$
$ "
'
%
$
$ '
(
$
'
"
) '
1 $
$
$
"
$
$$
$
""
(( '
0
+
#,-.!
3'
4
,-..
4
$
+
#&&),5
$
&#),50$
'
,-.'
)
$
%
$
$
$)
6
4
,-.
%
$
'
$)
'
6
'
$
($
"
'
"
) '
)
$
"
7
8
6
'
$ '
4
"
6
%) '
%,-.
%
$
$
'
%
%
"
)
)
%
"
))
'
%
()
%
($
)
$ )
))
9
8
'
$
'
'
"
$
' ' '
6
$
:
'
4
"
6
% '
%,-.
%
$
$
'
%
%
"
)
)
%
"
))
'
%
()
%
($
)
$ )
))
9
8 ;
)
"
)
"
'
:
$
$ '
%
:
'
'
<
)
$
'
"
'
%,-.
)
$
'
%
$
$
$ '
'
() '
)
7
=2'
6
'
%
"
)
))
$
$ '
%,-.
%
$
!
= )
))
%
(
<
"
$
("
%
'
$
)
$
'
%,-.!
= >
"
%
%
()$
)
$)
)
$
$
(
$
"
)
))
) '
6
'
6
$
$ '
"
"
%
!
= >
"
%
'
$
($))
)
" '
(?
$
'
%,-.
$
(
$
"
)
))
'
%
"
'
6
$
$ '
"
"
%
!
3'
) '
$
)
$
&#
'
$
(" $
"
'
'
$$
$"
'
'
)
'
,5$ "
4
$
&#
),50$
!$$
$"
'
"
"
'
'
$$
'
%
(,-.
(
'
("
%
)
"
&),50$
!
@
+
6
!*
$
'
'
) '
;
A
(;
(
$
<"
(&"
')
B
$CC"
)
"
!
.
.
#
!*
'
""
'
A
(
$
'
'
$D %
;
$"
(
'
'!,<'
0
+
$E
>
$
)
'
(
"
$ '
0
+
$E
$
!
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "
#
$
%
&'
(
'
) "
'
*
(%
'
+
,
-. "
(
)
'
(/
%
% '
"" (/
!0
"-. -
'
(
$
%
%
*
"
%
) %
) '
+
,
' '
)
+
,
1%
""
+,1
"
%) !2
%
%
")
!
&'
%
*
"
) '
%,
*
*
%)
'
!&'
)
'
$
-.
%0
(-
%*
*
%
'
'
()
3 %
%
"" (*
!&'
3 %
(
%
)
$
'
%
%
%
%$
(
(
!&'
(
'
'
3 *
"" (*
%
) '
"" (/%
%
)
)
% '
"" (*
%
% '
%,
!
&'
%'
%
-
%)
%
(
%'(
)
"
$%
*
"
!
4
''
'
(
$
%
' '
+,1
% '
"" ( %
*
'
%,
/
%"
"
!&'
(
'
% +
,
1%
%
'
%
5
!&'
+,1"
(
%'
%
"" (
$'
3
$
(
%
%
!&'
(
$
%
)
3
%
"
*
$
%
(
%
'
% "
%
(6
'
3 +
,
,'(
0
"
$
%
%1
7 "
!
8
-
'
(
'
'
%'
%
*
'
%
) +
,
1%
% "
!
)
' +,1"
'
%
*
%
) ) '
%
%+
,
"
%
"" (
$'
'
% % "" (%
%
!%%
"" (
"
'
%
*
'
*
%
) ) '
+
,
1%
(-!
#
'
""
)-
'
)
''
)
%
*
"
)
%
%
) +
,
% "
)
*
( '
,
""
% '
(
!&'
(
%
4
)
789 %
)(
"
)"
"
'
'
5
%+
,
1%
-!&'
4
)
789
% -
%
0
789
%
""
*
%
%
-!
:
(
'
,
""
*
% '
%
) +
,
%0
789
)-
%
""
%
%
*
'
(
;'
*
%
(
*
%
(
% '
%
%
%
'
%
)
+
,
%
%%
'
!<
)
=
%""
>
)
"
% %
*
?
@
"
,
"
' '
%
%( '
(
A*
"
--!
'
"
'
(
%,
""
%
*
'
%
) +
,
*
*
)
'
% %(
%"
%
:
""
%
)
%%
* '
%
) % "
!
'
-
0
) '
,
""/
)
"
'
-%
) %
%
*
'
+
,
1%
( "
' '"
%%
'
)
" '
*
(
(
% "
'
!8B
(-
'
(
'
$
)"
$ '
%%
)
"
%
% )
6
'
%+
,
C
D %
%'
6(
)-;
D %%
%%
:
"
'
'
*
%
%
'
-%
) ) '
+
,
"
%;
D &
3
*
%
'
:
"
;
%
D 4 "
)
*
*
"
%
(
(
'
'
%%
%(
%
%E
'
(
"
%
)
"%
5"
$
% "" ("
"
%
%
!
1 "
(
'
-+
,
6
%(
"
!@
E
%))
'
-+
,
% '
*
'
) '
"
F7 "
(
"
'
%
%7
"
F
% '
) '
&
"
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "
#
"
$
"
%
$ "
&$
"
!$
%
"
'
'"
"
(
')
"
!
)
*+
"
'
,,
-
&./
'
%
*
0
!1%
)
%
&
"
' %
2 '
'#
)
"
% %
*
0
3
'
)
'
+
"
'
%
% %
*
0
3!1%
2 '
'
'
%
'
"
+
%
/
&
'
&) %
2 '
!
&
1%
2 '
''
'2 #
$4% 3
+'
'
)
'
+
"
+
& "
"
%
*
0
!1%
2 '
'
'
%
%
'
+
)'
+
"
%
''
%
*
0
3
+
' %
$56
''
&&7
% '
+
"
%
')
%
) %
*
0
3
+
' %
$56!8
'
%
'
'
&
7
)
'
+
"
9
!1%
'
'
'
'
'
'
-
"
"
"
%
*
0
3
' 9
+
'
'
'
-
':!6
+
))
9
' & &
))
%
%
9
%
*
0
9
+
'
%
" '
&
+
)
9
%
'
"
! %
%
2 '
'
% %
"
"
) %
*
0
3
'
% %
)
';
$56< %
)
''
$=
' "
-
'!;
%
)
"
)
"
%
'
)
' %
' %
-
>
"
+
"
&!
:
' %
&
'
+
%
'2 '
'
% %
)
%
$56
')
%
!?
*
0
'
3
'
&"
'+
"
'
%
%"
"
) %
'2 '
!;
%
%
&
%
%
'' %
)
'$56!
+
"
' "
-
'
%
$=*'
,
3
!
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "
#$%&'&()*+,-,./010/-2/-345,6/7
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "#
$%&'(')*+,-./)0.123'345/-
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "#
$%&'
(
(
$)"
"
*+
$)'
(
,*)-
$-
.
$ /
0 $
1$
23435678764897:;:3<64=>?@73?34A6A:94B;A:94<C376A3=A9AD3E94:4FG9=3H@=6A3 IJ?K35897:;LMB;A:94>?@73?34A3=
NOPQRSTOPQUVWXYZ[OPO\T]TPY ^WP_P\`WQT`ZOaYTVWV bTcY_WP
defgh ijkklmnopmqrjsnjmosotuslvwqtnxtyqnzjyxy{xzltun|xem{otdq}qndqtxg ~tlnokomnln|x ltqtpluxjkuonx
defg
tlmuxmnlqtrmxoyxmxyquxtnqosuxtyqnzotu|ljyqtpooqso{qsqnzvqn|ljn mxjqmqtpotxnxtyqltln|xem{otdq}qndqtxosslvn|xrltxmyqltl yqtpsxwo}qsz|l}xyqtrxtnmosslronqltynlujksxxylmnmqksxxyjtuxm okkmlkmqonxrqmrj}ynotrxyotuv|xmxn|x|l}xyomxqt}xuqj}otu|qp| uxtyqnzltqtpuqynmqrnygekuonxn|xltqtpluxnlq}ksx}xtnn|qyklsqrzg o{sxfgfggg
xjqmxujtuxmi
defg
xltxokkmlkmqonxyqnxyvqn|sotujyxuxyqptonqltyyjr|oyxtnmos jyqtxyyixmqrxl}}xmrqosotuqxuweyxqtorrlmuotrxvqn|n|x xtxmossotdotueyxokg
trsjuxkmlqyqltynlosslvlmrl}konq{sx
jyxyltn|xyo}xyqnxxqn|xmqtltxynmjrnjmxlmouorxtnynmjrnjmxyg|x }qljyxyrot{xxmnqroslm|lmqltnosoturotqtrsjuxonnor|xu mxyquxtnqosuxxslk}xtnqtxxkqtpvqn|n|xqtnxpmqnzl|qynlmqrynmjrnjmxy otu|qynlmqruqynmqrnyg
o{sxyfgfggotu
fgfghg
defg xynmqrnn|xjyxl|ljyqtpjtqnyoyy|lmnwnxm}mxtnosyxrxknlmn|lyx osslvxu{zn|xi|lmnwxm}xtnosmuqtotrxg
ixrnqltyfggfotu
fgg
degf ml}lnxo}ql|ljyqtpnzkxyotukmqrxmotpxyn|onomxrltyqynxtnvqn| n|xljyqtpsx}xtn~ronxplmqxyl|ljyqtpolmuo{qsqnzg o{sxfgfgg
deg
trljmopxtxvmxyquxtnqosuxxslk}xtnn|onqyrltyqynxtnqtuxyqptyqx rlslmotusllmomxomonqlvqn|n|xlsuxmmxyquxtrxyqtn|x txqp|{lm|llug
ixrnqltfgfg
degh mlnxrnmxyquxtnqostxqp|{lm|lluqxvylyjmmljtuqtpqtxzomuyotu }ljtnoqtyg
o{sxfgfghg
deg
trljmopxn|xyj{uqqyqltotulmuxxslk}xtnlsompxmkomrxsyoysottxu etqn xxslk}xtnynlxtyjmxo}lmxrl}kmx|xtyqxoturmxonqx okkmlor|nlksottqtpn|xuxxslk}xtnoyoyqtpsxjtqng|qyulxytln kml|q{qnjyxlsottxuetqn xxslk}xtnyltkomrxsysxyyn|otn|mxx ormxyg
ixrnqltfgfg
deg
trljmopxn|xuxxslk}xtnl|qp|xmuxtyqnz|ljyqtpqtomxoytxomn|x rxtnxmln|xrqnzoturslyxnlmxrmxonqltotuyxmqrxyyjr|oynmotyqn mxnoqsotukj{sqrorqsqnqxyg
o{sxyfgfggotu
fgfghg
deg
sslvmxyquxtnqosuxtyqnzonn|x|qp|xmxtuln|xkxm}qnnxumotpxlmyqtpsx o}qszuxxslk}xtnvqn|qtxuqj}otuqp| xtyqnzxyquxtnqosdotueyx uxyqptonqltyoysltpoyn|xuxxslk}xtnr|omornxmln|xyqtpsxo}qszomxo qy}oqtnoqtxuqtrsjuqtpslnvqun|ylmqxtnonqltnlynmxxn{jqsuqtp|xqp|ny ltyqnxkomqtpnmoqrotutlqyxo}ltpln|xmrltyquxmonqltyg o{sxyfgfggotu
fgfghg
deg tyjmxyoxvoso{sxotu{qxo{sxmxyquxtnqostxqp|{lm|lluyotuq{motn sqo{sxynmxxnyg
~qnztpqtxxmqtp
inotuomuy
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./01($0$%2'2+*%3,2+*%-4$('2$.2*25$6*%+%78*.$91.'2$ :;0<$&)*(+,=>3,2+*%/01($0$%2$.
?@ABC DEFGHIJKLMKNLIKEOKPPIFFQNLIEIQRSNTHSTTOFUSHTGRSVQWIOXGFI OIYILTZVIEUB
[KNLI\]B\]B^_^B`
?@AB` @ZOKUIUSIaTEQERTHOQEKEPIKEOVKZUTNIPTVZKUQNLIJQUSUSIbIEIHKL cLKELKEOGFIVKZKEOOIFQREKUQTEFB
[QULI\]KEOdTEQEReKZ
?@ABf
gIYILTZKEOQVZLIVIEUHIFQOIEUQKLOIFQRERGQOILQEIFKEOhTHiTHVXNKFIO PTOIFjiTHFQERLIiKVQLkKEOVGLUQZLIiKVQLkGFIFjUTZHTYQOITYIHFQRSUKEO RGQOKEPIiTHEIJNGQLOQERFKEOHIETYKUQTEFBbGQOILQEIFFSTGLOIEFGHIUSKU EIJHIFQOIEUQKLOIYILTZVIEUQFPTEFQFUIEUJQUSUSIOIFQREjFQaIjKEO iTTUZHQEUTiTLOIHHIFQOIEPIFQEUSIEIQRSNTHSTTOBlTEFQOIHUSIQVZKPUTi EIJOIYILTZVIEUTEFGHHTGEOQERHIFQOIEPIFB
mIPUQTE\]B\nB^o^
?@ABD
@ZOKUIaTEQERFUKEOKHOFUTIEPTGHKRIUSIiTLLTJQERPHQUIHQKp q`YKHQIUkTiLTUJQOUSFKEOFQaIFjFGPSKFUSKUiTGEOQEUSITLOIHKHIKFTi UTJEr
qbKHKRIFKUUSIHIKHTiLTUFHKUSIHUSKETEUSIFUHIIUrTHPHIKUQYIRKHKRI OIFQREFUSKUQEPTHZTHKUIUSIsRKHKRIOTTHtiHTEUKRIKZZIKHKEPIUTNLIEO QEUTUSISTVIr
q?TUPTYIHKRIKEOiLTTHKHIKHKUQTuv`wxUSKUQFPTEFQFUIEUJQUSUSIFPKLITi SQFUTHQPKEOTLOIHKHIKFr
qcLKEUQERTiFUHIIUUHIIFKEOZLKEUQERFUHQZFKLTERFQOIJKLMFrKEO qmIUNKPMFjNGQLOQERVKFFQERjKEOPTEiQRGHKUQTEPTEFQFUIEUJQUSTLOIHZKHUF TiEIQRSNTHSTTOFB
[KNLI\]B\nB^_^B`
?@_B\
mUHIERUSIEUSIOTJEUTJEKFUSIlQUkyFFTPQKLKEOPGLUGHKLPTHIjKEOKFUSI ZHQVKHkPIEUIHTiHIUKQLFIHYQPIFBvKPQLQUKUIKSIKLUSkVQWTiHIUKQLKEO PTVVIHPQKLGFIFjHIFQOIEUQKLOIYILTZVIEUjIEUIHUKQEVIEUjKEOLTORQERB [KNLI\]B\]B^A^B`
?@_BA
DESKEPIUSIZIOIFUHQKEXTHQIEUIOPSKHKPUIHTiPTVVIHPQKLKHIKFKEO ZHTYQOIiTHPTEYIEQIEUZIOIFUHQKEKEONQPkPLIPTEEIPUQTEFUTIEPTGHKRI JKLMQERKEOHIOGPIYISQPLIUHQZFJQUSQEUSIPTVVIHPQKLKHIKB mIPUQTE\]B\]B^o^
?@_B_ mGZZTHUUSIHIOIYILTZVIEUTiKGUTXTHQIEUIOPTVVIHPQKLKHIKFQEUT ZIOIFUHQKEXiHQIEOLkPTVVIHPQKLGFIFB
[KNLIF\]B\]B^A^B`KEO
\]B\]B^_^B`
?@_Bo cHTUIPUSQFUTHQPHIFTGHPIFQEUSIPTVVIHPQKLKHIKFKEOIEPTGHKRI KZZHTZHQKUIHISKNQLQUKUQTEKEOKOKZUQYIHIGFIB
lSKZUIH\]B\]KEO
mIPUQTE\]BA\B^o^
?@_Bz
DEFGHIUSKUEIJHIUKQLKEOPTVVIHPQKLOIYILTZVIEUQFPTVZKUQNLIJQUS KEOPTVZLIVIEUKHkUTmUB{ILIEKyFFVKLLXUTJEQVKRIB|EKOOQUQTEjJQUSQE USIlQUkyFlIEUHKLfGFQEIFFgQFUHQPUjEIJHIUKQLKEOPTVVIHPQKLOIYILTZVIEU FSTGLONITiKFPKLIKEOUkZIUSKUPTVZLIVIEUFUSISQFUTHQPPSKHKPUIHB mIPUQTEF\]B\]B^o^
KEO\]BA\B^o^
?@_B]
cHTYQOIFGiiQPQIEUKGUTKEONQPkPLIZKHMQERQETHOIHUTFIHYILTPKL NGFQEIFFIFQEUSIPTVVIHPQKLOQFUHQPUFBDEFGHIUSKUKLLZKHMQERKHIKFKHI JILLOIFQREIOKEOUSKUKGUTZKHMQERFZKPIFKHISQOOIEiHTVZIOIFUHQKE YQIJjJSIEIYIHZTFFQNLIB
lSKZUIH\]BAn
?@_BC cHTYQOIFGiiQPQIEUTZZTHUGEQUQIFiTHTiiQPIFUSKUFGZZTHUUSIHIRQTEKLj KRHQPGLUGHKLXNKFIOIPTETVkKEOUSILTPKLEIIOFTiUSIPTVVGEQUkB [KNLI\]B\]B^A^B`
?@_B} |EeQWIOX@FIjmIHYQPIlTVVIHPQKLjKEOlIEUHKLfGFQEIFFOQFUHQPUFIEPTGHKRI HIFQOIEUQKLKEOTiiQPIGFIFQEGZZIHXFUTHkLTPKUQTEFTHLTPKUQTEFKLTERUSI [KNLIF\]B\]B^A^B`
KEO\]B\]B^_^B`
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./01($0$%2'2+*%3,2+*%-4$('2$.2*25$6*%+%78*.$91.'2$ :;0<$&)*(+,=>3,2+*%/01($0$%2$.
?@AB?C@ADEFGC@A@GHBIJBKGABLGMNCBKOBIIFHLBIBGHG@HLGBP@HQJ?@J@KGABHQR EAB@QG@JLESS@ALBHIHA@HKM
TUVMWX
YQLEZAH[@EFFBL@J@P@IE?S@QGOBGCBQ\B]@JRUK@^_@APBL@`ESS@ALBHI^HQJ `@QGAHIaZKBQ@KKJBKGABLGKGELES?I@S@QGGC@?@J@KGABHQEAB@QGHGBEQEF KZAAEZQJBQ[J@P@IE?S@QGM
NHbI@WcMWcMXdXMeHQJ
_@LGBEQWcMWcMXfX
TUVMWW YQKZA@GCHGQ@OLESS@ALBHIJ@P@IE?S@QGJE@KQEGEbKGAZLGPB@OLEAABJEAK GEGC@SEZQGHBQKM
NHbI@WcMWcMXdXMeHQJ
_@LGBEQWcMWcMXfX
TUVMg
g@P@IE?HQJBS?I@S@QGLESS@ALBHIJ@KB[Q[ZBJ@IBQ@KHQJhEAFEASRbHK@J LEJ@KGE?AEPBJ@EP@AKB[CGHQJ[ZBJHQL@FEAQ@ObZBIJBQ[KHQJ A@QEPHGBEQKMiZBJ@IBQ@KKCEZIJ@QKZA@GCHGQ@OLESS@ALBHIJ@P@IE?S@QG BKLEQKBKG@QGOBGCGC@`BGDjKLCHAHLG@A^?HAGBLZIHAIDBQCBKGEABLJBKGABLGKM _@LGBEQKWcMWcMXfX
HQJWcMdWMXfX
TUVMY kAECBbBGA@GHBILESS@ALBHIlEQBQ[EQ\HBQ_GA@@GQEAGCEFkBQ@_GA@@GM NHbI@WcMWcMXdXMeHQJ mEQBQ[\H?
TUVMn
TBSBGGC@FIEEAHA@HHQJKBl@EFbZBIJBQ[KBQGC@`@QGAHIaZKBQ@KKHQJ_@APBL@ `ESS@ALBHIJBKGABLGKGE@QKZA@GCHGQ@ObZBIJBQ[KHA@BQKLHI@OBGCGD?BLHI EIJ@AbZBIJBQ[KBQGC@JBKGABLGM
NHbI@WcMWcMXVXMeHQJ
_@LGBEQWcMWcMXfX
TUfMW _Z??EAGHQJSHBQGHBQHGAHQKBGBEQHIlEQ@HAEZQJBQJZKGABHIHA@HKGE?AEG@LG GC@C@HIGCHQJKHF@GDEFA@KBJ@QGBHIQ@B[CbEACEEJKM
NHbI@KWcMWoMXdXMeHQJ
WcMWoMXVXMe
TUfMd
_Z??EAGGC@J@P@IE?S@QGEFBQJZKGAB@KGCHGHA@LEQKBKG@QGOBGCPBGBLZIGZA@ HQJOBQ@ADKZ??EAGK@APBL@KHQJKBSBIHA^LES?HGBbI@ZK@KM_Z??EAGGC@AEI@ EFGC@`BGDHKHQH[ABLZIGZAHIIDRbHK@JK@APBL@L@QG@AFEAGC@KZAAEZQJBQ[ HA@H^BQLIZJBQ[`HIBKGE[H^eQ[OBQ^g@@AkHAp^\@HJEOEEJ^\HJAEQ@qQEII^ rZGC@AFEAJ^HQJGC@ZQBQLEA?EAHG@JHA@HKEZGCEF_GMs@I@QHM NHbI@KWcMWtMXdXMeHQJ
WcMWtMXVXMe
TUfMV
YQKZA@GCHGBQJZKGABHI?AEu@LGKHA@J@KB[Q@JHQJKBG@JGE?AEPBJ@H?EKBGBP@ BSH[@EFGC@LESSZQBGDMTHQJKLH?BQ[HQJK@GbHLpKKCEZIJb@ZK@JGE @QCHQL@BQJZKGABHIbZBIJBQ[KM
NHbI@WcMWoMXVXMeHQJ
_@LGBEQWcMWoMXfX
TUfMa
g@P@IE?HQJBS?I@S@QGBQJZKGABHIJ@KB[Q[ZBJ@IBQ@KHQJhEAFEASRbHK@J LEJ@K^GE?AEPBJ@EP@AKB[CGHQJ[ZBJHQL@FEAQ@ObZBIJBQ[KHQJ A@QEPHGBEQKMiZBJ@IBQ@KKCEZIJ@QKZA@GCHGQ@OBQJZKGABHIJ@P@IE?S@QGBK LEQKBKG@QGOBGCGC@`BGDjKLCHAHLG@AM
_@LGBEQWcMWoMXfX
TUfM`
YPHIZHG@GC@LES?HGBbBIBGDEFGC@vQJZKGABHIeA@HHQJ@]BKGBQ[C@HPD @wZB?S@QGZK@b@GO@@QsB[COHDdtHQJ`AHQ@eP@QZ@HQJJ@G@ASBQ@BF A@RlEQBQ[EAEGC@AHLGBEQBKQ@L@KKHADGE@QKZA@KHF@GDHQJIBHbBIBGD^CHlHAJ^ HQJQEBK@A@JZLGBEQBQKZAAEZQJBQ[Q@B[CbEARCEEJK^KLCEEIK^HQJ?HApKM NHbI@WcMWcMXVXMeHQJ
_@LGBEQKWcMWcMXfXHQJ
WcMWoMXfX
TUxMW gBKLEZAH[@LEQP@AKBEQEF@]BKGBQ[FHASIHQJGEQEQRH[ABLZIGZAHIZK@KM NHbI@WcMWtMXdXMe TUxMV _GABLGIDIBSBGJ@P@IE?S@QGEQ?AE?@AGB@K@]BKGBQ[HGGC@GBS@EFGC@ HJE?GBEQEFGCBKi@Q@AHIkIHQGCHGHA@J@KB[QHG@JHKH[ABLZIGZAHIIHQJM NHbI@KWcMWtMXdXMeHQJ
WtMWtMXVXMe
TUxMf _Z??EAGLESSZQBGDRbHK@JH[ABLZIGZAHIZK@KOBGCBQGC@LBGD^BQLIZJBQ[ LESSZQBGD[HAJ@QK^EALCHAJK^HQJ?HApKM
NHbI@WcMWcMXdXMeHQJ
_@LGBEQWcMddMWXX
TUxMx YQLEZAH[@GC@ZK@EFKZKGHBQHbI@H[ABLZIGZAHI?AHLGBL@KM yhezQEGH?HAGEFGC@ mEQBQ[`EJ@Z?JHG@
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./01($0$%2'2+*%3,2+*%-4$('2$.2*25$6*%+%78*.$91.'2$ :;0<$&)*(+,=>3,2+*%/01($0$%2$.
?@ABC
DEFGHIJHKEFHELMKNOIPEFMQFHRSTISFMTUFETMIENHKNSLIFHELIOTORMIEHKIPE RHIVHWIPEHFTORMIHOKNOELKOIMNXEFLETVHGYMRILSFFOSKNHKQLZSLELZOFRHIV LEFXHREL[JMIEFZIFMWWHRZEIRB\OFIPE]SMTHIVMKNRPMFMRIEFOWIPEROGGSKHIVB ^M_TE`aB`bBcdcBe
?@ABf
ghYTOFEIPEWEMLH_HTHIVMKNNELHFM_HTHIVOWHGYTEGEKIHKQYEFGMKEKI MQFHRSTISFMTYFOIERIHOKWOFTMKNLJHIPHKIPE@F_MK?HGHI?HKEHKIPEWOFGOW MQFHRSTISFMTYFELEFXELB
iSIOWLROYEWOFIPE
RSFFEKIjOKHKQRONEJOFkl
WSISFEfHIVIMLk
?@ABm
nPEFEYFOYOLENFELHNEKIHMTZROGGEFRHMTZOFHKNSLIFHMTNEXETOYGEKIM_SIL TMKNLNEXOIENIOMQFHRSTISFMTSLEZFE]SHFEIPEKOKUMQFHRSTISFMTSLELIO HKROFYOFMIE_SWWEFMFEMLIOGHIHQMIEYOIEKIHMTTMKNSLEROKWTHRILMLM ROKNHIHOKOWMYYFOXMTWOFLS_NHXHLHOKLOFSLEYEFGHILB^PEIVYEMKNJHNIP OW_SWWEFMFEMLLPMTT_ENEIEFGHKEN_VIPEfHIV_MLENOKIPERPMFMRIEFZ HKIEKLHIVZMKNLEKLHIHXHIVOWIPEM_SIIHKQTMKNSLELBDFEYMFEMKNMNOYI QSHNETHKELMKNFEQSTMIHOKLIOMLLHLIHKIPENEIEFGHKMIHOKOWIPEMYYFOYFHMIE IVYEMKNLROYEOWMQFHRSTISFMT_SWWEFMFEMLKEENENHKRHFRSGLIMKRELIPMI JMFFMKIIPERFEMIHOKOWLSRP_SWWEFMFEMLB
^M_TE`aB`oBcpcBe
?@ABq DFEYMFEMKNMNOYIQSHNETHKELMKNFEQSTMIHOKLIOMLLHLIHKIPENEIEFGHKMIHOK OWIPEMYYFOYFHMIEIVYEMKNLROYEOWMQFHRSTISFMT_SWWEFMFEMLB rERIHOK`aB`bBcpc
stuvuwxtyz{|}xv}~xx|swv|
gr`B gKROSFMQEIPERFEMIHOKOWJOFkWOFREPOSLHKQIOLSYYOFIIPETORMT EGYTOVGEKI_MLEHKkEEYHKQJHIPLGMTTIOJKLGMFIQFOJIPB fPMYIEF`aBdbMKN
fPMYIEF`aBpc
gr`BA gKROSFMQEROGGEFRHMTSLELIPMIYFOXHNE_MLHRZEXEFVNMVLPOYYHKQMKN LEFXHRELWOFFELHNEKILB
^M_TE`aB`aBcdcBe
gr`B
@YNMIEIPESKHRHYMTfONEIO[M\EKROSFMQEIOIPEEhIEKIWEMLH_TE _SLHKELLELIPMIMFEROGYTEGEKIMFVIOrIBqETEKM
LLGMTTUIOJKRPMFMRIEF
MKNIPMIYFOXHNEMFMKQEOWQOONLIOTORMTFELHNEKILl[_\NEWHKEMKNYEFGHI KOKURPMHKZNHLROSKIIVYELIOFELJPHTEGMHKIMHKHKQIPEEhHLIHKQYFOXHLHOKLHK IPESKHRHYMTfONEIPMIYFOPH_HIWOFGSTMFELIMSFMKILZOSITEIZMKNRPMHK NHLROSKIUIVYELIOFELZMKNFEIMHT_SLHKELLELOXEF`cZcccL]SMFEWEEIHKLHjEl MKN[R\THGHIREFIMHKKOKUFEIMHTSLELZLSRPMLFEMTELIMIEOWWHRELZWFOG ORRSYVHKQQFOSKNUWTOOFFEIMHTLYMREHKfEKIFMTrIBqETEKMB ^M_TE`aB`aBcdcBe
gr`Bg
DFOXHNENEXETOYGEKIHKREKIHXELWOFKEJXHLHIOFULEFXHKQ_SLHKELLELIO NEXETOYMWWOFNM_TEJOFkWOFREPOSLHKQEHIPEFIPFOSQPROKLIFSRIHOKOW POSLHKQOFYMVGEKIOWMKMYYFOYFHMIEHKTHESWEEIONEXETOYPOSLHKQ ETLEJPEFEHKIPERHIVBrSRPHKREKIHXELLPMTTHKRTSNEROKLHNEFMIHOKOWXHLHIOFU LEFXHKQSLELHKENHSGEKLHIVELHNEKIHMTOFqHQPEFEKLHIVELHNEKIHMT JPEFEMYFOERIYFOXHNELMWWOFNM_TEPOSLHKQOFMKMYYFOYFHMIEYMVGEKIOW MKHKTHESWEEB
fPMYIEF`aBdbMKN
fPMYIEF`aBpc
gr`B`
rSYYOFIIPENEXETOYGEKIOWFELYOKLH_TEZXHLHIOFULEFXHKQROGYOKEKILIOIPE fHIV
LEROKOGVMLMXMTSM_TELOSFREOWO_LZIMhFEXEKSELZMKNRSTISFMT MGEKHIHELBDFOGOIEYOTHRHELIPMIWMRHTHIMIEMKNEKROSFMQEIPHLIVYEOW LSLIMHKM_TEEROKOGHRNEXETOYGEKIB
^M_TE`aB`aBcdcBe
gr`Bd gKROSFMQEXHLHIOFULEFXHKQSLELOFHEKIENIOJMFNMKSYLRMTEGMFkEIZ ROKLHLIEKIJHIPIPEMTTEV
LFEYSIMIHOKMLMYFONSREFOWJOFTNURTMLLJHKELB
^M_TEL`aB`aBcdcBeMKN
`aB`bBcdcBe
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./01($0$%2'2+*%3,2+*%-4$('2$.2*25$6*%+%78*.$91.'2$ :;0<$&)*(+,=>3,2+*%/01($0$%2$.
?@ABCDEFGHIJH@KIECLDBI@CKCMDAHAIJFIFEHLHNHKLHKIDNCKFOFAA ICDE@AIOFEPHIQ
RSTQU
RKADEHFL@VHEAHO@WCMDAHAIJFIFVC@LAFKCVHEXEHNEHAHKIFI@CKCMFKY NFEI@BDZFEDAHQ[HOCVHIJHBFNCKIJHKDO\HECMJCIHZFKLOCIHZECCOA FKLEHAIFDEFKIAHFIA\DIBCKI@KDHICZ@O@IVFBFI@CKEHKIFZAQ ]F\ZHT^QT^Q_`_Qa
RSTQb
RKBCDEFGHACB@FZZYFKLHKV@ECKOHKIFZZYEHANCKA@\ZH\DA@KHAAHAIJFIOFPH NCA@I@VHBCKIE@\DI@CKAICIJHBCOODK@IYFKLCNHEFIH@KFK HKV@ECKOHKIFZZYXACDKLOFKKHEQ
cDICMABCNHMCEIJH
BDEEHKIdCK@KGBCLHeCEPf
MDIDEHg@IYIFAP
RSTQh
RWNFKLZCLG@KG@KIJHLCeKICeKFEHFICHKBCDEFGHeFZP@KGi\@P@KGiFKL FZIHEKFI@VHIEFKANCEIFI@CKOCLHA@KCELHEICEHLDBHIJHKHHLMCE FDICOC\@ZHIE@NAQ
]F\ZHT^QT^Q_`_Qa
RSTQ^ ?CKCIZHG@AZFIHCEEHAIE@BIIJHKDO\HECMEHAIFDEFKIAHFIAi\DIBCKI@KDHIC NECJ@\@IMCEODZFEHAIFDEFKIAQ
]F\ZHT^QT^Q_`_QaFKL
SHBI@CKT^Q``QT`_
RS`Qa
gCKI@KDHICNECJ@\@IMCEODZFEHAIFDEFKIAiBJF@KL@ABCDKIAICEHAiFKLI@OHX AJFEHZCLG@KGNECjHBIAkHWBZDL@KGlEFBI@CKFZceKHEAJ@NmCLG@KGnQgCKA@LHE LHAI@KFI@CKOHO\HEAJ@NBZD\AFKLCIJHENCIHKI@FZZCLG@KGCNI@CKAIJFI BCKIE@\DIHICIJH]EFKA@HKIcBBDNFKBY]FWk]c]nEHVHKDHAIEHFOAD\jHBIIC FBCKL@I@CKFZDAHNHEO@IQ
]F\ZHT^QT^Q_`_QaFKL
SHBI@CKT^Q``QT`_
RSUQU RKADEHBZFE@IYiIEFKANFEHKBYiFKLHMM@B@HKBY@KZCBFZEHGDZFI@CKAiNHEO@II@KG NECBHAAHAiFKLMHHAIEDBIDEHAQ
gJFNIHEAT^Q_UoT^QTU
HKADEHIEFKANFEHKBY@K
NECBHLDEHAFKLZCBFZ
EHGDZFI@CKA
pqrstuqvwxrtyuvxr
z[TQT
{EHAHEVHIJHg@IY|AJ@AICE@BFKLBDZIDEFZEHACDEBHAiACIJFIIJHYOFY BCKIE@\DIHICIJHANHB@FZBJFEFBIHEFKL}DFZ@IYCMIJHg@IYFKLADNNCEI@IA HBCKCO@B\FAHQ
SHBI@CKT^Q`TQ_~_
z[TQ` {ECIHBIIJHJ@AICE@BEHACDEBHAIJFIHW@AI@KIJHLCeKICeKBCOOHEB@FZFEHFQSHBI@CKT^Q`TQ_~_ z[TQU RKBCDEFGHIJHFLFNI@VHEHDAHiEHJF\@Z@IFI@CKiFKLEHIECM@ICMJ@AICE@B \D@ZL@KGA@KeJ@BJIJHCE@G@KFZDAH@AKCZCKGHEMHFA@\ZHQ SHBI@CKT^Q`TQ_~_
z[TQ~ {ECOCIHIJHFNNZ@BFI@CKCMADAIF@KF\ZH\D@ZL@KGNEFBI@BHAICIJH NEHAHEVFI@CKCMJ@AICE@BEHACDEBHAQ
SHBI@CKT^Q`TQ_~_
z[TQ
aLCNILHA@GKEHV@HeGD@LHZ@KHAFKLCEMCEOX\FAHLBCLHAiAIFKLFELAFKL BE@IHE@FMCEIJHFZIHEFI@CKCEEHJF\@Z@IFI@CKCMJ@AICE@BNECNHEI@HAQ]JH FLCNI@CKCMLHA@GKEHV@HeGD@LHZ@KHAFKLCEMCEOX\FAHLBCLHABFKFAA@AI g@IYAIFMMiIJH{ZFKK@KGgCOO@AA@CKiFKLg@IYgCDKB@ZeJHKEHV@He@KG NHEO@IEH}DHAIAFKLNECV@LHZCKGXIHEOEHGDZFICEYBCKA@AIHKBYQ SHBI@CKT^Q`TQ_~_
z[TQg
aLCNILHA@GKEHV@HeGD@LHZ@KHAFKLCEMCEOX\FAHLBCLHAIJFIEH}D@EHKHe LHVHZCNOHKI@KCEFLjFBHKIICJ@AICE@BFEHFACE\D@ZL@KGAIC\HBCONFI@\ZH @KLHA@GKFKLBJFEFBIHEe@IJHW@AI@KGJ@AICE@B\D@ZL@KGAQ SHBI@CKAT^QThQ_~_i
T^QT^Q_~_iFKLT^Q`TQ_~_
z[TQ gCKI@KDHICLHVHZCNFKL@ONZHOHKILCeKICeKLHA@GKGD@LHZ@KHAFKLCE AIFKLFELAICNECIHBIJ@AICE@B\D@ZL@KGAFKLGD@LHMFFLHBJFKGHAQ SHBI@CKAT^QT^Q_~_FKL
T^Q`TQ_~_
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "#
$%&%'()*)(&*+),-,%.(&/012)%1%&3(3,+&4-3,+&.5%)(3%/3+36%7+&,&89+/%:2/(3% ;<1=%'*+),->?4-3,+&012)%1%&3%/
@ABBCDEFGHIJEKD
LMNON PQRSTUVWXVYZS[\W]^_URWXQ[Q_`aQR]TS`]WaQ]VTaSXV[TabSR]_URWXQTUcWUd eTa`URRO
fU`]WaQRNgOhiOhgh[Q_
NgOhiOhjh
LMNOk PQRSTU]VU`aQR]TS`]WaQalRSR][WQ[b\UbSW\_WQXR[Q_\[Q_R`[eWQXWQ[\\ eSb\W`[Q_eTWc[]U_UcU\aemUQ]eTanU`]RO
opq[Q_LV[e]UTNgOki
LMNOr
sUZSWTU`aQR]TS`]WaQ[Q__UcU\aemUQ]eT[`]W`UR]V[]TU_S`UUQUTX^ _Um[Q_]VTaSXV`aQRUTc[]WaQ[Q_UllW`WUQ`^tRS`V[R]VUSRUalXTUUQ bSW\_WQXm[]UTW[\RtRW]U_URWXQ]am[uWmWvUe[RRWcUVU[]WQX[Q_`aa\WQX[Q_ UQUTX^XUQUT[]WaQtaQYRW]Ud[]UTTUSRUtd[]UTUllW`WUQ]\[Q_R`[eWQXt[Q_ SRUal\adYl\ad[ee\W[Q`URt[maQXa]VUTRO
opq[Q_LV[e]UTNgOki
LMNOq
LaQ]WQSU]aWme\UmUQ]]VUUuWR]WQX_URWXQTUcWUdeTa`URRlaTQUd _UcU\aemUQ][Q_TUma_U\R]VTaSXVaS]]VU`W]^OLTU[]U[__W]WaQ[\]aa\Rt WQ`\S_WQX_URWXQXSW_U\WQUR[Q_paTlaTmYb[RU_`a_URt]aWQlaTm_U`WRWaQY m[wWQX[Q_UQRSTUVWXVYZS[\W]^tRSR][WQ[b\U_URWXQ]V[]WR`ame[]Wb\UdW]V [Q_UQV[Q`UR`ammSQW]^`V[T[`]UTOLaQRW_UTlaTm[]WaQalVWR]aTW`_URWXQ TUcWUd`ammW]]UU[Q_paTea\W`WURO
fU`]WaQRNgONxOhyht
NgONgOhyht[Q_NgOkNOhyh
LMkON
z[WQ][WQ]VU`V[T[`]UT[Q_W_UQ]W]^al]VU_adQ]adQb^UmeV[RWvWQX R]TaQXR]TUU]_UlWQW]WaQt`TU[]WQX[`]WcUlTaQ]RU]b[`wRdW]VaS]_aaT RU[]WQXt\a`[]WQXe[TwWQXaQ]VURW_U[Q_bUVWQ_bSW\_WQXRt[Q_m[uWmWvWQX UQ]T[Q`UR[Q_]T[QRe[TUQ`^aQbSW\_WQXl[{[_URO
|[b\UNgONgOhrhOq[Q_
fU`]WaQNgONgOhyh
LMkOk
}W]VWQWQ_SR]TW[\[Q_`ammUT`W[\[TU[RaS]RW_U_adQ]adQtm[WQ][WQ ]T[QRW]WaQ[\vaQUR[RQUU_U_]aeTa]U`]eSb\W`VU[\]V[Q_R[lU]^bS][\\ad l\UuWb\UlTaQ]RU]b[`wRdVW\UUQ`aST[XWQX]T[QRe[TUQ][Q_[``URRWb\UlTaQ] l[{[_UR[Q_e[TwWQXaQ]VURW_UR[Q_b[`wRalbSW\_WQXRO |[b\URNgONjOhkhOq[Q_
NgONjOhrhOq
LMkOr PQ`aST[XU_WR]WQ`]WaQdW]VWQ[Q_bU]dUUQbSW\_WQXRb^c[T^WQXTaal\WQUR [Q_[T]W`S\[]WQXbSW\_WQXl[`[_URO
fU`]WaQRNgONxOhyht
NgONgOhyht[Q_NgONjOhyh
LMkOM sUZSWTUbSRWQURRUR[Q_R]TS`]STUR]abUal[R`[\U`ammUQRST[]UdW]V UuWR]WQXa\_UTbSW\_WQXRWQ]VUL~[Q_fL\[Q_SRU[TU[RO |[b\UNgONgOhrhOq[Q_
fU`]WaQNgONgOhyh
LMrON
WmW]bSW\_WQXUQcU\aeURWvUR[Q_TUZSWTU[_UZS[]URW_U[Q_TU[TRU]b[`wR ]aeTURUTcU]VU`V[T[`]UTalUuWR]WQXTURW_UQ]W[\[TU[R[Q_]a[caW_ acUTbSW\]\a]ROsUZSWTUlS]STU_UcU\aemUQ]]a`aQlaTm]a]VUe[]]UTQ[Q_ _UQRW]^al]VUQUWXVbaTWQX[TU[ROQaT_UT]a`ame\UmUQ]UuWR]WQX]adQ `V[T[`]UT[Q_eTa]U`][X[WQR]WQ`STRWaQWQ]acWQU^[T_[XTW`S\]ST[\[TU[RO |[b\UNgONxOhrhOq[Q_
fU`]WaQNgONxOhyh
LMrOk
PQRSTU]V[]QUdTURW_UQ]W[\_URWXQR`aQ]TWbS]UeaRW]WcU\^]aUuWR]WQX QUWXVbaTVaa_Rb^`ame\UmUQ]WQX`V[T[`]UT[Q_WQ`aTeaT[]WQX_URWXQ lU[]STURtRS`V[RlTaQ]eaT`VURtl[{[_U[T]W`S\[]WaQ[Q_R]Ueb[`wRO fU`]WaQNgONxOhyh
LMrO~
sUcWUd]VUUuWR]WQXaT_WQ[Q`U\[QXS[XU\WmW]WQX\a]`acUT[XUpl\aaT[TU[ T[]Wa[``aT_WQX]ae[T`U\RWvUWQTURW_UQ]W[\[TU[RWQaT_UT]aeTURUTcU QUWXVbaTVaa_`V[T[`]UTtTU_S`U[_cUTRUcWUd[Q_RV[_UWme[`]RaQ UuWR]WQXVamURtWmeTacUXTaSQ_d[]UTWQlW\]T[]WaQt[Q_[caW_acUTbSW\] `aQ_W]WaQROq]]VUR[mU]WmUt`[TUQUU_R]abU][wUQ]V[][Q^aT_WQ[Q`U TUcWRWaQ_aURQa]Wme[WT]VU[bW\W]^]abSW\_RU`aQ_SQW]RaQUuWR]WQX\a]R dVUTU[eeTaeTW[]UO
|[b\URNgONxOhkhOq[Q_
NgONxOhrhOqt[Q_fU`]WaQ
NgONxOhyh
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./01($0$%2'2+*%3,2+*%-4$('2$.2*25$6*%+%78*.$91.'2$ :;0<$&)*(+,=>3,2+*%/01($0$%2$.
?@ABC DEFGHIEJEKLEMENOPQEJRROHJSNGLENTJLUSTPHJVTJLURIEERRIEEUB?WTPREIXYBZ[ ?@AB\
C]PNOIETIELGSRHOJHJPTI^HJVIEFGHIEQEJRU_OIIEUHLEJRHTNGUEURWTR HQPNEQEJRRITJUPOIRTRHOJLEQTJLQTJTVEQEJRURITREVHEU`SOJUHUREJRKHRW RWEPTI^HJVQTJTVEQEJRURITREVaTIRHSGNTRELHJRWE?HISGNTRHOJCNEQEJRB ?WTPREIXYBZb
?@cBd DEFGHIEPIHMTRELEMENOPQEJRROHJSOIPOITRETPPIOPIHTREPGeNHSOPEJUPTSE HJROUHRELEUHVJUB
fTeNEUXYBXbBgAgBd`
XYBXYBgAgBd`TJL
XYBXhBgAgBdTJLiESRHOJU
XYBXbBgcg`XYBXYBgcgTJL
XYBXhBgcg
jklmnopqrstsou
vCXBA CJSOGITVERWELEMENOPQEJRO_T__OILTeNEWOGUHJVTJLIEQOME LEMENOPQEJRSOJURITHJRUTU_ETUHeNEB
?WTPREIUXYBZwTJLXYBAg
vCXBc dLLIEUUKOI^_OISEWOGUHJVJEELUeaUGPPOIRHJVTJHQPIOMELxOeUyWOGUHJV zQTRSWB{
?WTPREIUXYBZwTJLXYBAg
vCXB[ CJSOGITVEHJJOMTRHMEWOGUHJVRaPEUTJLLEUHVJUB |yd}JORTPTIRO_RWE ~OJHJV?OLEGPLTRE
vCXBb dLLIEUUEQEIVEJSaUWENREITJLRITJUHRHOJTNWOGUHJVIEFGHIEQEJRUBdLLIEUUELHJURTRENTK vCXB
DEMHEKTJLPOUUHeNaTQEJLRWE\IOKRWTJTVEQEJRiaUREQROEJSOGITVE RWEPIOLGSRHOJO_IEVGNTRELT__OILTeNETJLKOI^_OISEWOGUHJVGJHRUB DEMHEKRWE\IOKRWTJTVEQEJRiaUREQ\iROQT^EUGIERWTRHRHUJOR LHUPIOPOIRHOJTRENaT__ESRHJVRWELEMENOPQEJRO_T__OILTeNEWOGUHJVB C]EQPRHOJU_OIIEURIHSRELzKOI^_OISE{WOGUHJVGJHRUUWOGNLeEE]PNOIEL` TJLTLOPRTUTPPIOPIHTRE`HJTLLHRHOJROSGIIEJRE]EQPRHOJU_OIT__OILTeNE WOGUHJVGJHRUB?OJRHJGEROTNNOKTQT]HQGQO_wQTI^ERITREGJHRUPEIaETI TJLPIHOIHRaTNNOSTRHOJO_TJJGTNeGHNLHJVPEIQHRTNNOSTRHOJUTJLSTIIaOMEI PEIQHRUROQTI^ERITREGJHRUHJLEMENOPQEJRPIOxESRURWTRHJSNGLET QHJHQGQO_cgPEISEJRT__OILTeNEGJHRUB
|yd}JORTPTIRO_RWE
~OJHJV?OLEGPLTRE
vCXB@
DEMHUERWEPEIQHRRHJVPIOSEUUROURIETQNHJERWEIEMHEKO_T__OILTeNE WOGUHJVTJLQTI^ERITREQGNRH_TQHNaPIOxESRUBfWE?HRaKHNNEURTeNHUW LH__EIEJRLEUHVJVGHLENHJEU_OIMTIHOGUJEHVWeOIWOOLUHJRWE?HRaHJOILEIRO PIOMHLETPPIOPIHTREVGHLENHJEU_OIJEHVWeOIWOOLSWTITSREIBfWELEUHVJ VGHLENHJEUKHNNTLLIEUUTISWHRESRGITNSWTITSREI`eGHNLHJVQTREIHTNU` TPPIOPIHTREzQTUUHJV{O_URIGSRGIEU`PTI^HJV`RIEEPNTJRHJVyPIEUEIMTRHOJ` QHRHVTRHJVMHUGTNHQPTSRU`TJLPIEUEIMHJVMHJEaTILMHEKU`TQOJVORWEI LEUHVJHUUGEUBfWE?HRaKHNNPIHOIHRHERWETLOPRHOJO_LEUHVJVGHLENHJEU_OI RWEd__OILTeNEvOGUHJVTJLH]EL
UEOMEINTaOJEU`UWOGNLUGSWOJEUeE
TLOPREL`TUKENNTU_OIRWEWHVWLEJUHRaIEUHLEJRHTNOJETJL^EaUHREUHJRWE QELHGQLEJUHRaIEUHLEJRHTNOJEB@EUHVJVGHLENHJEUKHNN_TSHNHRTRETJLJOR WHJLEIRWEPIOLGSRHOJO_GJHRUT__OILTeNERONOKEIHJSOQEWOGUEWONLUB
POJTLOPRHOJO_LEUHVJVGHLENHJEU_OIQGNRH_TQHNaPIOxESRU`RWE?HRaKHNN ENHQHJTRERWESGIIEJRIEFGHIEQEJRU_OITGUEPEIQHR_OIQGNRH_TQHNa PIOxESRUHJRWEWHVWLEJUHRaIEUHLEJRHTNLHURIHSRTJL_OIRWE^EaWOGUHJVUHREU HJRWEQELHGQLEJUHRaIEUHLEJRHTNLHURIHSRRWTRTIENHURELHJRWEdMTHNTeNE |yd}JORTPTIRO_RWE
~OJHJV?OLEGPLTRE
fTeNEXYBXbBgZgBd
XYBXbBgcg
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./01($0$%2'2+*%3,2+*%-4$('2$.2*25$6*%+%78*.$91.'2$ :;0<$&)*(+,=>3,2+*%/01($0$%2$.
?@ABCADEAFGHIJKLL@HIMN@OPEQRMSAFTEUGKVSAWXPELEAFYEEBV ZVVEVVLEAF[\GA]KHHEAFPIMFTE\SFI^SPPED@PK@FEHEBEVSWA@FSAW@AB HE_GASAWLEBSKLBEAVSFI`@H]EPVMGFTEHFT@AFTGVEPSVFEBSAFTEZD@SP@OPE ?@ABCADEAFGHIJKLL@HIaN@OPEQRbM^SFT@P@ABKVEBEVSWA@FSGAFT@FOEFFEH HEcPE]FVFTEFI`E@AB]T@H@]FEHGcEdSVFSAWBEDEPG`LEAF[CA@BBSFSGAMFTE \SFI^SPPEPSLSA@FEM@V@``HG`HS@FEMKVE`EHLSFHEeKSHELEAFVcGHLKPFSc@LSPI `HGfE]FVcGHFTEHEL@SASAW`@H]EPVSAFTELEBSKLBEAVSFIHEVSBEAFS@P BSVFHS]F[NTE\SFI^SPP@BG`FLKPFSc@LSPIBEVSWAWKSBEPSAEV@ABEPSLSA@FE\gh HEeKSHELEAFVOIAGP@FEHFT@Ai@IjkMRlkm[NTSVFSLSAW^SPP@PPG^FTE\SFI FGcSHVF]GL`PEFEFTEK`B@FE@AB@BG`FSGAGcFTERljlnEAEH@PhP@A[oA]E FTEnEAEH@PhP@ASV@BG`FEBMFTE\SFI]@AOEWSA^GHpGAEVF@OPSVTSAWBEVSWA WKSBEPSAEVcGHFTE_GAEVEVF@OPSVTEBSAFTEnEAEH@PhP@A[ UXk[q
XA]GKH@WEBEDEPG`LEAFGc]GrTGKVSAWME]GrTGKVSAWMsWHEEAtL@AKc@]FKHEB TGLEVM@ABGFTEHsAGAFH@BSFSGA@PtcGHLVGcTGKVSAW[XAVKHEFTEVETGKVSAW FI`EV@HE@BBHEVVEBSAFTEBEDEPG`LEAFGcBEVSWAWKSBEPSAEVFGVFHE@LPSAE FTE@``HGD@P`HG]EVV[
YuZvAGF@`@HFGcFTE
wGASAW\GBEK`B@FE
UXk[x
ZLEABFTEwGASAWoHBSA@A]EFGBEcSAEyc@LSPIz@VGAEGHLGHE`EHVGAV PSDSAWFGWEFTEH@V@VSAWPETGKVEpEE`SAWKASFSA@B^EPPSAWKASF[NTE BEcSASFSGAVTGKPBAGFBSVFSAWKSVTOEF^EEAHEP@FEB@ABKAHEP@FEBSABSDSBK@PV @ABVTGKPBAGFSL`GVE@AKLEHS]@PPSLSFGAFTEAKLOEHGc`EHVGAVFT@F ]GAVFSFKFE@c@LSPI[
\T@`FEHk{[jR
UXR[k XA]GKH@WETSWTEHBEAVSFIBEDEPG`LEAF^TEHE@``HG`HS@FE[ N@OPEVk{[km[lRl[ZM
k{[km[ljl[ZMk{[k{[lRl[ZM
k{[k{[ljl[ZMk{[k|[lRl[Z
@ABk{[k|[ljl[Z}@AB
\T@`FEHVk{[R~@ABk{[jl
UXR[R XAVKHEFT@FTSWTEHBEAVSFITGKVSAWG``GHFKASFIVSFEV@HEAGFPGVFFGPG^EH BEAVSFIKVEV[
\T@`FEHVk{[R~@ABk{[jl
UXR[j hHGLGFELSdEBrKVEBEDEPG`LEAFV[
N@OPEVk{[k{[lRl[ZM
k{[k{[ljl[Z@ABJE]FSGA
k{[k{[lQl
UXR[Q hHGLGFEVE]GABKASF`HGBK]FSGA[JE]FSGAk{[RR[ljl UXR[ ZPPG^]GADEHVSGAGcVSAWPErc@LSPITGLEVFGLKPFSrKASFB^EPPSAWV[ N@OPEk{[km[lRl[Z[ EeKSHEBKABEHJ~
UXR[m hHGLGFE@O@P@A]EGcFI`EVGcTGKVSAWFTHGKWTGKFFTE^TGPE]GLLKASFI[ N@OPEVk{[km[lRl[ZM
k{[k{[lRl[ZM@AB
k{[k|[lRl[Z
UXR[Z
hHGDSBESA]EAFSDEVcGHTSWTEHBEAVSFITGKVSAW[Xd`PGHE`GVVSOPESA]EAFSDEV cGHOKSPBSAW@FF@]TEBL@HpEFH@FETGKVSAWKASFVcGHHEAF@ABcGHV@PE[ CA]EAFSDEVFG@BG`F@V@``HG`HS@FESA]PKBEMOKF@HEAGFHEVFHS]FEBFGMc@VF FH@]pSAWBEDEPG`LEAF@``PS]@FSGAVMBEcEHHEBBEDEPG`LEAFcEEVMHEBK]EB `@HpSAW@ABuGHGFTEH]SFIVF@AB@HBVM@ABBEAVSFIOGAKVEV[ \T@`FEHVk{[R~@ABk{[jl
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./01($0$%2'2+*%3,2+*%-4$('2$.2*25$6*%+%78*.$91.'2$ :;0<$&)*(+,=>3,2+*%/01($0$%2$.
?@ABC
DEFGHIJEKLEMNOPJGMQMRNEMJLSEJETKUJLMLVWXGMLNLRKEJQNRMOMENEKTMVTKX GKLSMEHTJFSMLVYNLGGMSRJFXNVKRJLSEXFREMJLJQJZKXSM[KTJPKS\B]JGMQH ETKUJLMLVWXGMLNLRKEJKLRJFXNVKTMVTKXGKLSMEHGKZKOJIPKLESYNLG XKSEXMRERJLSEXFREMJLJQONXVKSMLVOK^QNPMOHFLMES\_MLROFGMLVRFXXKLEQOJJX NXKNXNEMJSNLGHNXGNLGSKE`NRaXKbFMXKPKLESB
cN`OKSdeBdfBghgBiNLG
deeBghgBi_NLGjTNIEKX
deBAk
?@ABj
iPKLGXKVFONEMJLSEJGMSRJFXNVKKlKPIEMJLSQXJPETKPMLMPFPGKLSMEH XKbFMXKPKLESBcTKjMEHSTNOOGMSRJFXNVKKlKPIEMJLSQJXPMLMPFPGKLSMEH XKbFMXKPKLES
cN`OKSdeBdfBghgBiNLG
deeBghgBi_NLGjTNIEKX
deBAk
?@ABm
]JGMQHSKREMJLdeBdggJQETKUJLMLVWXGMLNLRKEJXKLNPKETK]J`MOKTJPK nNXaWZKXONHmMSEXMREEJo]NLFQNREFXKG?JFSMLVWZKXONHmMSEXMREBpmKZKOJI IJOMRMKSEJSEXKNPOMLKETKXKZMKqIXJRKSSQJXETMSJZKXONHGMSEXMREJL XKSMGKLEMNOONLGQJXIXJrKRESETNERXKNEKONLG^JqLKXSTMIJIIJXEFLMEMKSQJX XKSMGKLESBDFIIJXEVMZMLVXKSMGKLESETKXMVTEJQQMXSEXKQFSNOMQNLKlMSEMLV INXaMSEJ`KSJOGB
DKREMJLSdeBAdBgAgNLG
deBAABdfg
?@ABs
nXJPJEK`JETtZKXEMRNOuNLGtTJXM[JLENOuPMlKG^FSKB@LRJFXNVKPMlKG^FSK GKZKOJIPKLESETNERJP`MLKRJPINEM`OKFSKSJLETKSNPKSMEK_KMETKXMLETK SNPKSEXFREFXKJXNGrNRKLESEXFREFXKSBiPKLGETKUJLMLVWXGMLNLRK NRRJXGMLVOHBiPKLGPKLESEJETKUJLMLVWXGMLNLRKMLROFGKIKXPMEEMLVETK viwQJXETKXKSMGKLEMNORJPIJLKLEJQNPMlKG^FSKGKZKOJIPKLEEJ`K tNGGMEMZKuXNETKXETNLqMETMLETKKSEN`OMSTKGviwQJXETNE[JLK_NLG NOOJqMLVRJPPKXRMNONLGXKSMGKLEMNOFSKXSEJtSTNXKuETKMXINXaMLV_XKSFOEMLV MLNOJqKXJZKXNOOINXaMLVXKbFMXKPKLEBwKbFMXKPKLESQJXRJZKXKGINXaMLV STJFOGNOSJ`KXKRJLSMGKXKGB
cN`OKSdeBdeBgAgBi_
deBdeBghgBi_DKREMJLS
deBdeBgxgNLGdeBAABdxg
?@AB?
@lIOJXKETKIJSSM`MOMEHJQNOOJqMLVPMlKGFSKNLGOMZKyqJXaFLMESMLLJL^ XKSMGKLEMNO[JLMLVGMSEXMRESB
z@lIOJXKNLGNGJIENSNIIXJIXMNEKPJGMQMRNEMJLSEJLJL^XKSMGKLEMNOUJLKS ETNEqJFOGIKXPME_KMETKXNSJQXMVTEJXNSNRJLGMEMJLNOFSK_XKSMGKLEMNOFSKS MLROFGMLVPMlKGFSKNLGMLEKVXNEKGOMZKyqJXaFLMESB
ziLNOH[KXKbFMXKPKLESETNERJPPKXRMNOIXJrKRESIXJZMGKTJFSMLVQJXN IJXEMJLJQETKKPIOJHPKLEETNEqMOO`KVKLKXNEKGJLSMEKBcTKjMEHqMOO SEFGHNLGGKEKXPMLKqTNEIJXEMJLJQKPIOJHPKLEVKLKXNEKGqMOOXKbFMXK TJFSMLV_qTKETKXTJFSMLVqMOO`KXKbFMXKGJL^SMEKJXNOOJqKGJQQ^SMEK_MQ IXMRMLVQJXETKLJL^MLROFSMJLNXHFLMESqMOO`KEMKGEJNLEMRMINEKGSNONXMKSQJX KPIOJHKKSMLETKRJPPKXRMNOIJXEMJLJQETKIXJrKRE_NLGMQML^OMKFQKKSqMOO `KIKXPMEEKGQJXSPNOOKXSM[KGIXJrKRESB
z@lIOJXKNLGNGJIENSNIIXJIXMNEKGKZKOJIPKLEMLRKLEMZKSSFRTNSTMVTKX GKLSMEHNLGTKMVTENOOJqNLRKS_NSEXKNPOMLKGGKSMVLXKZMKqIXJRKSS_NLG QMLNLRMNOMLRKLEMZKS_MLROFGMLVQKKXKGFREMJLSNLGqNMZKXSNLGRJLEXM`FEMJLS QXJPETKjMEHuS?JFSMLVcXFSEvFLG_EJKLRJFXNVKKPIOJHKXSEJIXJZMGKJL^ SMEKKPIOJHKKTJFSMLVB
cN`OKSdeBdeBgAgBi
deBd{BgAgBi_NLGDKREMJL
deBAABdxg
?@AB| wKZMKqNLGXKZMSKGKZKOJIPKLESENLGNXGSIKXENMLMLVEJSKRJLGFLMESB @LSFXKETNEETKGKZKOJIPKLEJQSKRJLGFLMESMSITHSMRNOOHNLGQMLNLRMNOOH cN`OKSdeBdfBgAgBi_
deBdfBghgBiNLGDKREMJL
deBAABAhg
Agenda Item #11.1.
! "#
$%&%'()*)(&*+),-,%.(&/012)%1%&3(3,+&4-3,+&.5%)(3%/3+36%7+&,&89+/%:2/(3% ;<1=%'*+),->?4-3,+&012)%1%&3%/
@ABCDEFADGHBIJAHAKBIABCLMDNAOBIHDPQFBIBHHAGHDRGHROBISDGJCHBGKBIKCT CAHEBPSCTBGKDUOBPH@AACL
VWXLY
ZANDA[BGKORCCDEF\BUAGKH]ADGPFQCDRGBI\]RQCDGJRIKDGBGPAHR^ _YK`QCHH]ADGPFQCDRGBI\]RQCDGJRIKDGBGPAHRIAaQDIA@QIH]AIKDCHIDEQHDRG R@B@@RIKBEFAQGDHC[DH]DGH]ANBIDRQCDGPRUAPBHAJRIDACLbRIAcBUOFATB OIR`APHIAaQDIAKHROIRNDKAH[RFR[dDGPRUAQGDHCQGKAIH]APQIIAGH DGPFQCDRGBI\]RQCDGJRIKDGBGPAPRQFKEAIAaQDIAKHROIRNDKARGAQGDH B@@RIKBEFAHR]RQCA]RFKC[DH]DGPRUACR@QOHRefOAIPAGHR@BIABUAKDBG DGPRUABGKRGAQGDHB@@RIKBEFAHR]RQCA]RFKC[DH]DGPRUACR@QOHRgh OAIPAGHR@BIABUAKDBGDGPRUAL
_iBFBGPAPRFFAPHDGJ]RQCDGJDUOBPH@AAC[DH]H]AIAaQDIAUAGHHRPRGCHIQPH B@@RIKBEFA]RQCDGJTADH]AIRGRIR@@CDHAKAOAGKDGJRGH]ACDjAR@H]ACDHA BGKRH]AICDHAPRGKDHDRGCT@RIFBIJAIPRUUAIPDBFKANAFROUAGHCLWNBFQBHA DGPIABCDGJH]A]RQCDGJDUOBPH@AACHRIA@FAPHH]ADGPIABCDGJPRCHR@]RQCDGJ DGH]APRUUQGDH\LkRFFAPH]RQCDGJDUOBPH@AAC@RICUBFFPRUUAIPDBF KANAFROUAGH[]AIAIAaQDIDGJIACDKAGHDBFPRGCHIQPHDRG[RQFKGRHEA @ABCDEFAL
_lGPIABCABCBOOIROIDBHAIACDKAGHDBFPRGCHIQPHDRGDGdFDAQ@AACBGKmRIPIABHA BCFDKDGJCPBFA@RIFBIJAI]RQCACL
_YKKBGBERNAURKAIBHAdDGPRUA[RIS@RIPA]RQCDGJPRUORGAGHHRH]A lGPFQCDRGBI\VRQCDGJnIKDGBGPAIAaQDIAUAGHCL
k]BOHAIopLqh
VWXLr
WCHBEFDC]IAJQFBHDRGCIAaQDIDGJH]BHBORIHDRGR@QGDHCDGBFFGA[ KANAFROUAGHCUAAHH]ACOAPDBF]RQCDGJGAAKCR@CAGDRICBGKOAICRGC[DH] KDCBEDFDHDACTDGPFQKDGJKANAFROUAGHBFKDCBEDFDHDACLsBIJAHthOAIPAGHR@GA[ ]RQCDGJQGDHCHRUAAHCAGDRI]RQCA]RFKGAAKCBGKohOAIPAGHBPPACCDEFAHR OAICRGC[DH]KDCBEDFDHDACL
k]BOHAIopLtu
VWXLk
ZAKQPATKA@AITRI[BDNA@AAC@RIB@@RIKBEFA]RQCDGJKANAFROUAGHCLs]AkDH\ [DFFACHBEFDC]BCAHR@PIDHAIDB@RIOIR`APHAFDJDEDFDH\HR]BNA@AACIAKQPAKT KA@AIIAKTRI[BDNAKLs]AkDH\[DFFAcOFRIABGKBKROHBCBOOIROIDBHA]DJ]AI DGPAGHDNAC@RIB@@RIKBEFA]RQCDGJKANAFROUAGHC[DH]QGDHCB@@RIKBEFAHR AcHIAUAF\FR[dBGKNAI\FR[dDGPRUA]RQCA]RFKCL
vmYwGRHBOBIHR@H]A
xRGDGJkRKAQOKBHABGK
k]BOHAIopLqh
VWfLM
ZAaQDIAEDP\PFABGKOAKACHIDBGBUAGDHDACBGKPRGGAPHDNDH\HRCQIIRQGKDGJ BIABCTDGBFFGA[]RQCDGJKANAFROUAGHCLyQOORIHOIRJIBUCHRKANAFRO URIAFRPBFBGKIAJDRGBF[BFSDGJBGKEDSDGJHIBDFCLlGBKKDHDRGHRIAaQDIDGJ EDP\PFABGKOAKACHIDBGPRGGAPHDNDH\DGBFFGA[IACDKAGHDBFKANAFROUAGHCT H]AkDH\[DFFOIRNDKACHB@@HDUADGCQOORIHR@IAJDRGBFHIBDFOIRJIBUCL yAPHDRGopLteLhghBGKvmY
wGRHBOBIHR@H]AxRGDGJ
kRKAQOKBHA
VWfLV
kRGHDGQAHRBOOF\zQGDPDOBFkRKAOIRNDCDRGCOAIHBDGDGJHR[BHAIIACRQIPACL s]AkDH\[DFFPRGHDGQAHRIAaQDIA[BHAIdA@@DPDAGHFBGKCPBODGJ@RIGA[ IACDKAGHDBFBGKPRUUAIPDBFPRGCHIQPHDRGTBC[AFFBCDUOFAUAGHDGJH]A {BHAI|CAW@@DPDAGP\BGK|CAMQDKAFDGACL
k]BOHAIopLtf
Agenda Item #11.1.
Zoning Code Update
City Council Public Hearing:
October 10, 2023
6:00 PM
Agenda Item #11.1.
2 Today’s Agenda
1. Introduction and Zoning Code Accomplishments
2. Process Overview and Comment Trackers
3. Detailed Overview of Key Changes
4. Zoning Map and Historic Preservation Overlay Map
5. CEQA Memo
6. Issues
7. Recommended Action
8. Public Comment, Discussion, and Decision
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
3 What does the Zoning Code Accomplish?
1. Consistent with St. Helena General Plan
• Important implementation tool
• Adds new Mixed-Use zone consistent
with General Plan Land Use Element
2. Economic development tool
• Highest and best use on Main Street
• Design standards provide certainty
• Expanded list of uses and more by right
• Parking Exemption Overlay
3. Streamlines permit processes
• More staff level review
• Eliminates arbitrary major design review
findings - objective
4. Facilitates multi-family development
• New objective design standards
• Ministerial review
• Reduced parking
5. Compliant with federal, state, and case law
• Telecommunications Act
• Recent Ca. legislative actions on housing
• Sign code – Reed v. Gilbert, 2015
6. Ease-of-use
• Land use tables
• Illustrations and graphics
• Rules of measurement
Source: St. Helena Historical Society
Agenda Item #11.1.
4 What does the Zoning Code Accomplish?
1. Consistent with St. Helena General Plan
• Important implementation tool
• Adds new Mixed-Use zone consistent
with General Plan Land Use Element
2. Economic development tool
• Highest and best use on Main Street
• Design standards provide certainty
• Expanded list of uses and more by right
• Parking Exemption Overlay
3. Streamlines permit processes
• More staff level review
• Eliminates arbitrary major design review
findings - objective
4. Facilitates multi-family development
• New objective design standards
• Ministerial review
• Reduced parking
5. Compliant with federal, state, and case law
• Telecommunications Act
• Recent Ca. legislative actions on housing
• Sign code – Reed v. Gilbert, 2015
6. Ease-of-use
• Land use tables
• Illustrations and graphics
• Rules of measurement
Agenda Item #11.1.
5 Multi-year Process
We are
here.
Agenda Item #11.1.
6 Overview of Comment Trackers
• Track PC, CC, and Public Comments
• October 26, 2022
• November 16 , 2022
• December 7, 2022
• May 10, 2023
• Separate Trackers
• All public comments
• Mr. Dan Hale
• Mr. Joe McGrath
• Mr. Greg Desmond
• May 10th Joint PC/CC Meeting
• Comments were mostly inserted as
written – content maintained
• Gold background identifies
recommended edits to the Code
440+
comments
tracked
Agenda Item #11.1.
7 Table of Contents
Part I: General Provisions
Part II: Administration and
Procedures
Part III: District Regulations
Part IV: Citywide Standards
Part V: Uses and Definitions
Agenda Item #11.1.
8 Part I: General Provisions
• Part I includes:
• Title, Authority and Purpose
• Reserved
There are no substantive edits in this Part
Agenda Item #11.1.
9 Section 17.05.080, Minor Design Review
Subsection 17.05.080.B Applicability
• Subsection 8. Added – reconstruction of a singlefamily residence destroyed by an act of God.
Section 17.05.100, Short Term Rental Permit
Subsection 17.05.100.C Public Hearing and Procedures
• Subsection 1. Added that the Planning
Commission shall hold a public hearing for
discretionary review for a new STR Permit.
Part II: Administration and Procedures
Agenda Item #11.1.
10 Section 17.09.030, Nonconforming Uses
Subsection 17.09.030.F Certificate of Present Extent of Legal Nonconformity for Uses
• Allows an owner to apply for a certificate determining the present extent of a legal nonconforming use (also the Director under certain conditions). • Subsection 3. The PRD required review and approval by the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
• Subsection 4/5. Amended to make the Director the approval authority; Director must make a written report to the Planning Commission (which is posted to the consent agenda) who decides if they want to review/consider the application.
• Subsection 8. The Director may also refer the request to the Planning Commission for a decision at a noticed public hearing.
Part II: Administration and Procedures
Agenda Item #11.1.
11 Section 17.11.010, Minor Modifications and
Variances
Subsection 17.11.010 Minor Modifications to
Development Standards
• Table 17.11.010.A Types of Minor Modifications.
• Change minor deviation from façades to objective
design standards.
Part II: Administration and Procedures
Agenda Item #11.1.
12 Part III: District Regulations
• Part III includes:
• Establishment of Base Zoning Districts
• Residential Zoning Districts
• Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning
Districts
• Business and Industrial Zoning Districts
• Community Agricultural and Natural
Resource Zoning Districts
• Public and Open Space Zoning Districts
• Overlay Districts
• Specific to Uses
• Reserved
Substantive changes are included in the
underlined sections.
Agenda Item #11.1.
13 Section 17.15.020, Establishment of Base Zoning Districts Table 17.15.020.A Base Zoning Districts
• Added back the Low Density Residential One
Acre Minimum (LR-1A) zone – uses and
development standards with some updates.
Agenda Item #11.1.
14 Section 17.16.030, Development Standards
Table 17.16.030.B Development
Standards – Residential Zoning Districts
• LR-1A - Max Building Gross
Floor Area (excludes accessory
structures):
• Lots < 1 acre (New Table)
• Lots ≥ 1 acre, max. 6,069 sf
(same as current code)
• LR – adjusted max. gross floor
area lots ≥ 11,000 sf
• MR – added for small lot
development – 55% max lot coverage PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
15 Section 17.16.030, Development Standards
Table 17.16.030.B Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts • MR - Added ground floor max. ceiling height standard of 15 feet for principal structures. • LR-1A and LR - Amended minimum interior side
setback upper stories from 10 feet to 5 feet.
Removed standard in the HR Zone.
• Amended – multi-family private ground floor open space from 120 to 80 sf per unit in the MR Zone and 120 to 60 sf per unit in the HR Zone. • MR – Amended min. garage or carport setback from a building façade from 10 feet to 5 feet. • LR-1A and MR – removed max. primary building footprint. • LR, LR-1A, MR – Amend min. interior side
setback for upper floors from 10 to 9 feet
Source: iStock
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
16 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
What has Changed or Been Deleted?
A.Design Standards for All Residential
Development Types
2. Required 2nd-story stepbacks, LR and
MR
3. Building Orientation
4. Wall Planes (formerly Bldg.
Transparency)
Roofline and Roof Design
5. Exterior Building Materials
6. Landscaping
9. Private Outdoor Open Space
10. Required Play Areas
Sustainability and Energy Efficiency
B. Design Standards Specific to Small
Lot Development
4. Small Lot Entrances
7. Small Lot Landscaping
8. Small Lot Private Open Space
C. Design Standards Specific to MultiFamily Development
1. Design
3. Entry Design
4. Common Outdoor Recreation Space
Universal Design
Note: The presentation only includes the recommendations from the PC in the August 15th hearing; all other ODS standards are the same as those presented in the last PC/CC Joint meeting in May.
Agenda Item #11.1.
17 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
Section 17.16.040.A.2 Required Second Story
Step-backs in the LR and MR Districts
• Removed – required stepbacks from rear.
• Added – an exception for front elevations
with porches that have a minimum depth of
68 feet that extends 80 percent or more of
the width of the front elevation, excluding a
garage.
• Added – this subsection only applies to new
single-family residences.
• Added – cross reference to Table 17.16.030
regarding required side yard second story
stepback.
PC
edits
Agenda Item #11.1.
18 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
Section 17.16.040.A.4 Wall Planes
• Replaces former “Building Transparency”
standards.
• New standards for the articulation of a
building’s wall.
• Added requirements for design features and
materials to reduce building massing.
• Amended – Director approval for building
offsets, roof overhangs, bay windows, and
use of materials to reduce building mass.
• Amend – unbroken wall plane dimension from
10 to 12 feet (more efficient construction)
Source: Lancia Homes
Source: Rocket Mortgage
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
19 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
Section 17.16.040.A.8 Parking Frontage
• Adjust the standard to allow for exceptions for
irregular lots (i.e., a pie-shaped lot) with a
narrow frontage, e.g. Doris Court.
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
20 Section 17.16.040.B.6 Small Lot Parking and Access
• Added – garages facing an alley that is ≤ 20 feet
in width, the garage must be setback a min. of
5 feet from the property line to facilitate
turning movements.
Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
21 Section 17.17.030, Use Regulations
Table 17.17.030.A Use Regulations – Commercial
and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
• Added micro-distilleries as allowed use in the
CB, SC, and MU zones subject to CUP in all
commercial zones
• Amend End Note #6: Rooftop bars uses are
allowed subject to CUP in CB and MU zones.
• Delete these bullets of prohibited uses in CB
zone in End Note 4:
• Establishments primarily preparing beverages for
food or consumption off the premises.
• Drive-in or walk-up window for take-out service.
Source: Glen Blair Bar Experience, CO
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
22 Section 17.17.030, Use Regulations
Table 17.17.030.A Use Regulations – Commercial
and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
• Add new End Note #1: Clarifies that the
10,000 sq ft floor area limitation for buildings
and uses only applies to Main Street Corridor
south of Adams Street.
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
23 Section 17.17.030, Development Standards
Table 17.17.030.B Development Standards –
Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
• Add for Max. Height, Principal Structure:
Max. height for buildings not on Main Street
may not exceed 46 feet.
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
24 Section 17.19.030, Development Standards
Table 17.19.030.B Development Standards – Community Agriculture and Natural Resource Zoning Districts
• Added new distinction based on lot area:
• Lots <2 acres – apply the standards of the LR-1A zone Lots 2 to ≤ 5 acres Lots > 5 acres
Density: 1 unit per 5 acres 1 unit per 5 acres
Max. Lot coverage: 0.5 acres 9,000 sf 1 acre 10,000 sf
Max 2nd story floor area: 35% of ground floor area 20% of ground floor area Max. ground level floor area: 4,500 sq ft 5,000 sq ft
(excludes acc. structures)
• Updated End Note 3:
No more than 0.25 acres for lots 2 - ≤5 acres and 0.5 acre for lots > 5 acres of any one parcel may be removed from potential, historical, or active agricultural use. All structures, driveways (except for a 16-foot wide driveway no greater than 2/3 the length of the parcel), parking areas, patios, pools, lawn areas, or other nonagricultural uses are included in the 0.25 acre or
0.5 acre maximum per parcel.
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
25 Section 17.19.030, Development Standards
Table 17.19.030.B Development Standards – Community Agriculture and Natural Resource Zoning Districts
• Added new Accessory structure height standard:
• Max 20. ft for a non-ADU accessory structure
• ADU – height refer to Section 17.22.030.E.9.
• Added new habitable space standard – End Note 4:
“The habitable space in accessory structures may not exceed 50% 25% of the gross floor area of the primary structure.”
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
26 Chapter 17.22, Specific to Uses
Section 17.22.030 Accessory Dwelling Units
• Inserted the City’s previously adopted ADU
standards consistent with Ca. Government
Code §§ 65852.2. and 65852.22.
• Subsection 17.22.030.G.2.a: Added detached
ADUs do not require a separate sewer
connection, provided:
• Adequate sewer capacity; and
• Cleaning/review of sewer lines with cctv
technology.
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
27 Chapter 17.22, Specific to Uses
Section 17.22.230 Small Wineries
E. Development and Use Standards
• Subsection 2: Removed the requirement that the
residential use must be the primary residence of the
winery owner. “Small wineries must be an accessory
use to a residential use.”
• Subsection 5: Amended the grape source
requirement:
• Deleted “a minimum of 85% of the group source
must be grown on premises or on the parcel of the
use”.
• Amended as … “grapes must be sourced from
within the City limits”. Source: Cellar Angels
Agenda Item #11.1.
28 Part V: Definitions and Rules of Measurement
• Part V includes:
• Definitions of Terms
• Definitions of Uses
• Rules of Measurement
Substantive changes are included in the
underlined sections.
Agenda Item #11.1.
29 Chapter 17.32, Definitions of Terms
Chapter 17.32 Definitions of Terms
• Demolition. The intentional removal of all or part of a building or structure when a building or structure is a designated historic landmark or located in a designated historic district. In all other areas of the City “demolition” means the intentional destruction and removal of 50 percent or more of the enclosing finished floor exterior walls and 50 percent of the roof structure of any building or structure. The percentage of this definition is determined using linear feet of finished floor.
• Visibility Triangle. On a corner lot, the triangle formed by the property lines extended from the face of the curb to their intersection and a line connecting such property the face of the curb line extensions measured 35 feet from their point of intersection. If no curb exists, the edge of the roadway or vehicular travel area shall be used as the point of measurement.
[Illustration will also be updated]
PC
edit
PC
edit Agenda Item #11.1.
30 Chapter 17.34, Rules of Measurement
Section 17.34.030.E Decks
• Added clarification that deck height is
measured from the average elevation of the
ground below the deck to the top of the floor
of the deck.
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
31 Chapter 17.34, Rules of Measurement
Section 17.34.060.A Measuring Lot Coverage
• Delete the first sentence in the opening
paragraph; it incorrectly refers to lot coverage
as a “ratio” and is unneeded.
• Updated Figure 17.34.060. Determining Lot
Coverage
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
32 Chapter 17.22, Specific to Uses
Section 17.22.230 Small Wineries
E. Development and Use Standards
• Subsection 2: Small wineries must be an accessory use to a residential use (existing Code). Removed the
requirement that the residential use must be the
primary residence of the winery owner.
• Subsection 3: Accessory buildings for small wineries
are required to comply with standards for accessory
buildings in the base zone. Director can apply more
restrictive standards to mitigate impacts.
• Subsection 5: Amended the grape source requirement:
• Deleted “a minimum of 85% of the group source
must be grown on premises or on the parcel of the
use”.
• Amended as … “grapes must be sourced from
within the City limits”.
Source: Cellar Angels
Agenda Item #11.1.
33 Historical Preservation Overlay (HPO) Map
Agenda Item #11.1.
34 Zoning Map
Agenda Item #11.1.
35 Overview - CEQA Memo
Technical Memo Supporting Findings of Consistency
with the 2040 General Plan EIR
• Completed June 14, 2023
• Required to ensure consistency with General Plan
2040 and EIR
• Analysis showed new Zoning Code:
• Does not propose changes to land uses or levels of
development allowed under the GP or EIR
• Does not propose any by-right development that was not accounted for in the GP or EIR
• Conclusion:
• Updated Zoning Code is consistent with the scope of the EIR prepared for General Plan 2040.
• No new or substantially more adverse impacts would
occur.
• No technical changes or additions to the EIR are needed.
Agenda Item #11.1.
36 Issues
Issues as detailed on Page 15 of the Staff Report
Counting ADUs towards density: Council direction requested by Planning Commission
• Option 1: Do not allow both ADUs and JADUs to be included in the density calculation.
• Option 2: Do not allow JADUs to be included in the density calculation. • Option 3: No change from current code and allow both ADUs and JADUs to be counted toward density.
Agenda Item #11.1.
37 Issues
Issues as detailed on Page 15 of the Staff Report
HP Overlay and Requests for Removal from the Overlay: Information • At the August 15th Planning Commission hearing, a member of the public requested their property be excluded from the HP Overlay zone • City Attorney opined that it is not in the Planning Commission’s purview in a Code adoption hearing to remove properties from the HP Overlay zone • Proper approach is after the Zoning Code has been adopted, a property owner may apply to remove their property from the HP Overlay using the procedure established in Section 17.10.030 (Amendment or Recission of Historic Designation).
Agenda Item #11.1.
38 Recommended Action
The St. Helena Planning Commission recommended that the City Council review the draft updated Zoning Code, Title 17, and:
1. Find that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, all environmental impacts of the City of St. Helena Zoning Code Update have been addressed within the FEIR for the 2040 General Plan EIR;
2. Adopt an ordinance amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the St. Helena Code (ZOA 2023- 001) incorporating the revisions noted in the Errata sheet attached to this report;
3. Amend the zoning map to be consistent with the General Plan land use map (ZMA 2023-001); and
4. Amend the zoning map to implement an expanded Historic Preservation Overlay District (ZMA 2023-001).
Agenda Item #11.1.
39 Thank you
1. Public Comment
2. City Council Questions/Discussion
3. City Council feedback on the proposed ADU
density calculation
4. City Council Decision
Agenda Item #11.1.
40 Thank you!
Agenda Item #11.1.
Dear St Helena Mayor and City Council,
Please take into account that this was
suggested less than 10 years ago and after
much hullabaloo—see below, the City Council
voted to keep the ordinance as is. I understand
we have new staff writing these changes into
the code. The citizens didn’t want it then and
don’t want it now. Why did the staff suggest
these changes. What is their reasoning behind
the changes. Forcing us to continually spend so
much time reading the fine print in the code
changes is unfair. I agree with Mr. Smithers and
others. Please vote to keep the ordinance as
now written.
City St. Helena City Council Will Consider
Rescinding Amendments to Small Winery
Ordinance
02/09/14
St. Helena’s City Council will hold a hearing on Tuesday, February 11 to consider repealing amendments to the Small Winery Ordinance approved just a few weeks ago after a months-long process.
From May – August 2013, the St. Helena Planning Commission held four hearings to consider amending provisions of the St. Helena Municipal Code that govern small wineries, and ultimately recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the Municipal Code. The City Council also held a number of hearings starting in September 2013 to consider amendments to the Municipal Code. On December 10, 2013, the Council introduced the proposed amendments, and on January 14, 2014, the Agenda Item #11.1.
Council approved them by a 4-1 vote. The amendments (contained in Ordinance Nos. 2014-1 and 2014-2) were to go into effect 30 days thereafter.
During the Council’s January 28, 2014 meeting, opponents of the Ordinance urged the Council to rescind the Ordinance and stated that they were circulating a referendum petition to place the Ordinance on the November ballot as a referendum item. If the petitioners gathered the required number of signatures, the Ordinance will be suspended pending the outcome of the November vote.
Last week, St. Helena’s interim planning director submitted a staff report recommending that the Council repeal the Ordinance and “reopen the review process to encourage an even broader community involvement and attempt to find new alternatives addressing most if not all concerns of the public.” The Staff Report as well as the amendments approved on January 14, 2014 can be found here: http://www.ci.sthelena.ca.us/sites/default/files/11%20Winery%20Ord.pdf The City Council meeting is open to the public, and will commence at 6pm at Vintage Hall on the campus of St Helena High School, 465 Main Street. The agenda for the meeting can be found here: http://www.ci.stRespectfully, Susan Kenward
Agenda Item #11.1.
916 Hunt Ave
St Helena, CA, Via email [email protected], phone 510-517-6202 10/3/2023
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Subject: Historical Plan Overlay for 916 Hunt Avenue
Our property has been identified to be included in the Historic Preservation Overlay. The City Council will vote to approve the Comprehensive Zoning update and Proposed Historic Overlay list of properties October 10, and we will not be able to attend that meeting, thus we are sending this letter to expand our public comment from Sept 26 and and after our conversation with Ms.
De Rosa.
To be clear, we do not intend to level our lot and build something new. However, in the decades to come, we want our son and the future owners of our property to be able to use it to its full potential as detailed below. The complexity and added financial burden of the HP Overlay is an exceptional hardship.
We request the removal of our property from the HP Overlay list for the following reasons:
1. There is only one qualified architectural historian list of properties and we are not on that list. (Page and Turnbull 2006)
2. We didn't request to be on this list and we weren't notified early in the process on 11/14/22, thus preventing us from participating in the process. This lack of awareness likely extends to others in the community, potentially causing friction over historical designations. [Note: the City recognized that we were not notified early in the process when they received the notice returned to them for an unknown reason. It is interesting to note the City mailed these notices to the site address not the mailing address as listed in public tax records.]
3. Our property is on the 1978 list which was apparently carried forward to the current master list.
a. In the 1978 report, there is no documentation, no further photo or context, no detailed “description and significance” such as other listed properties. There is no “Department of Parks and Recreation(DPR)” form for our property. b. Our property is not on the directory of properties for historic preservation from the California Office of Historic Preservation draft 1996-1998 list.* c. Our property is not on the 2006 Page and Turnbull report. “Page & Turnbull drove and walked every public street” with the exception of a section of Main St which was already designated as historic. They identified every parcel that contained properties built prior to 1958. Page & Turnbull had workshops for public input. Page & Turnbull are architectural historians.*
Agenda Item #11.1.
d. It is confirmed by Ms. DeRosa that the 1978 survey was “not comprehensive.” In fact the 1978 survey says “it is a sampling” of St Helena. Thus, based upon a spotty report, we will have to abide by special rules for maintenance and improvements. The City should only deem the historic overlay based upon the Page & Turnbull professional survey where the surveyors walked or drove every block of St Helena. If the City approves the current Historical Overlay, some homes will have to abide by stricter rules and some will not, costing some residents more money and allowing others more freedoms.
The current proposed Historical Overlay is flawed because it is partially based upon a 1978 citizens’ group that only sampled properties (see references).
e. Regarding the supporting evidence on the 1978 report:
i. The 1978 Report was by a Citizen Committee under the direction of the Napa County Conservation and Planning Dept. The 1978 survey was prepared by Napa Landmarks Inc, a non-profit group of Napans. There is no evidence our home was included in 1978 by a qualified Architecture Historian.
ii. There was no “description and significance” in 1978 for our property and yet substantial “description and significance” will be needed now by an architectural historian that we will have to hire to get off this list. iii. Is the City of St Helena saying that to get off the list in the same manner one was put on this list, a citizen can request to get off the 1978 list? Well, we are now asking to be removed from the list.
f. The California Office of Historic Preservation 96-98 report is notably an unfinalized draft.*
g. Page & Turnbull, an architecture and preservation firm, is truly the only report with supporting evidence for a historic preservation list of homes, and we are not on this list.
4. This HP Overlay singles out our property, while similar ones on our street aren't included, resulting in an inconsistent approach. Do not target our property based upon a decades old survey with lack of architectural historian evidence for this designation.
5. This designation restricts property modifications and adds complexity, making it more difficult to do exactly what our neighbors have done. This designation makes maintenance more costly and definitely more restrictive. On a fixed income, this will be a financial burden.
a. Ms. DeRosa confirmed the designation will add complexity to the process.
Complexity = Money + Time + Effort.
b. Is complexity truly the intention of the City Council? i. Is it your intention to make housing more expensive? ii. Is it your intention to make housing more exclusive? iii. Is it your intention to keep St Helena homogenous, less diverse?
Agenda Item #11.1.
iv. Is it your intention to discourage innovation?
v. Is it your intention to discourage development close to the City center?
6. The historic designation poses significant financial costs to hire an architectural historian plus an unknown fee yet to be determined by the City for removal from this designation. As mentioned, the process to get off this list will be far more complex and expensive than it was to get on this list.
7. The Historic Designation process lacks instructions on the specific steps to be added or removed from this designation. Do not approve this designation without also approving the clear process for residents.
a. Ms. DeRosa explained that it is customary to not put specific instructions in the designation but to have specific instructions on the application for addition or removal from the historic designation.
b. Do not approve this designation without also seeing the application for addition or removal.
i. What are the fees?
ii. What is the process?
iii. What will citizens have to do to get off this inconsistent 1978 designation? Since the 1978 report is by citizens, can a citizen request getting off this report?
8. Our existing City design review process adequately preserves neighborhood character and it adapts to changing building standards. It’s as simple as that.
9. Our request is not hasty; it's a plea to prevent undue financial and procedural burdens on our unique property. Our property has 3 units on a large lot, close to town. While Ms. De Rosa has told me the designation will only apply to one of the buildings, we all know this designation adds complexity to the future use of the property in an already complex process. This impacts us the owner, it negatively impacts our property value and it also impacts what is best for our community as a whole by discouraging the best housing use of the property.
a. As the years go by, these designations will be interpreted differently by different Planning Directors, thus adding unknowns to the process. b. Every parcel that adjoins our property and across the street has been developed in my lifetime.
i. To the east one home was changed into two homes.
ii. To the north, the view of Mt. St Helena was replaced with several 2 story commercial buildings.
iii. To the west, 2 parcels were converted into 4 parcels with one home on each parcel.
iv. To the south, one home was removed to create a street, one home was removed to create several adjoining townhomes, one home was removed to create a larger home.
Agenda Item #11.1.
c. Now we can’t do what our neighbors did in the same way they were allowed to develop. The process will be more complex and restrictive. Again, our existing design review process is adequate for neighborhood character. d. Our parcel is ripe for development at some time in the future. This is now in your hands how people will be allowed to live and walk less than one block to buy groceries. Do not handcuff the future of our parcel.
10. The designation prohibits historically designated parcels from a by right SB 9 lot split, and we disagree with this for residential properties where infill for more affordable homes is a priority.
11. There is some thought the “Mills Act'' could apply to the historic overlay properties. If a resident wants to apply for the Mills Act for their property they can do so via a separate process.
12. There are no benefits for us to be on the HP Overlay that outweigh the restrictions and complications.
We understand the City and resident’s desires to maintain a historic presence in St Helena, but our property's inclusion is based on a 1978 citizen’s document with no substantiation and doesn't align with current housing needs.
Our number one priority is to remove 916 Hunt Ave from this designation. However for all St Helena owners, now is the opportune time to implement a consistent approach to preservation. I truly fear this historic overlay is a response to NIMBY, and will squash diversity in our community. Please tread carefully here.
We leave it to you to determine a solution. However it seems like a fair next step would be to only use the architectural historians, who walked and drove every public street, Page & Turnbull list for the Historical Overlay.
In summary, we urge you to remove our property's inclusion before your vote on the HP Overlay, as it poses significant financial and logistical challenges. We believe this designation is inconsistent with our community's needs for increased housing and reduced traffic. Stepping in now to designate our property based upon an unsupported 1978 document created by a citizen committee, when we were not on subsequent historic reports, is unusual and extreme economic hardship.
Sincerely,
Tracy McBride
Randy Hussong
Agenda Item #11.1.
*References:
1. 1978 report is a written by a citizen committee not qualified architectural historians:
Agenda Item #11.1.
2. 1996-98 California Office of Historic Preservation list is a DRAFT:
3. 916 Hunt is NOT on the CA 96-98 draft list:
4. Page and Turnbull 2006, architectural historians, walked and drove every public street (with the exception of a section of Main St already designated historic.
5. From the City of St Helena HP Overlay FAQ:
Agenda Item #11.1.
From: Xinia Gamero
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos; Erika Opp
Subject: FW: Comment to Planning Commission/ City Council Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 11:07:46 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Good morning,
Please include the public comment below in the Zoning Code Council hearing in October.
Thank you,
XINIA GAMERO
PERMIT TECHNICIAN III- PLANNING
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Ave. | St. Helena, CA 94574
Planning: (707) 968-2659 | Direct: (707) 968-2740 | [email protected] From: Peter Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 7:06 PM
To: Public Comment <[email protected]>; Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [External] Comment to Planning Commission/ City Council Members of the Planning Commission and City Council;
Unfortunately, I am not able to attend the August 15 meeting to consider adoption of Revised Draft Zoning Code and Map.
However, I would like this letter to serve as an objection to adopting specific revisions in the Draft Zoning Code as it pertains to language regarding Conditional Use Permits in the (I) Industrial District by Non-Conforming Users.
Specifically, under Table 17.18.020 “Use Regulations”, Use Classifications in the Industrial District omits mention of required Condition Use Permit Requirements for:
“Asphalt batch, cement and concrete plants”
Per Chapter 17.60.020 of the existing Zoning Regulations, “The following uses require approval of a use permit as regulated by Chapter 17.168: … Asphalt batch, cement and concrete plants”
Agenda Item #11.1.
Further, the Revised Draft Zoning Code entirely omits protective language for Residential Districts which abut Industrial Zones.
Please note the clause below from our existing Zoning Regulation Chapter
17.60 INDUSTRIAL (I) DISTRICT which has been removed the Revised Draft:
“The following uses require approval of a use permit as regulated by Chapter
17.168:
All uses or expansion of existing uses proposed for industrial property that is located adjacent to property zoned for residential use. “Adjacent to” shall be defined to include properties with a common property line or properties directly across a street. “Property zoned for residential use” shall be defined as that property zoned LR low density, MR medium density, or HR high density residential;”
Dozens of residences adjacent to the outdated westside Industrial District that comprises the Shamrock Materials and Concrete Plant depend on the protections outlined in our existing Zoning Code to safeguard us from expansion and intrusions from this non-conforming user.
Removing these provisions from the Revised Draft ignores the contentious history of this Industrial land use and their residential neighbors. Additionally, these omissions are contrary to the stated goal of the Zoning Code that encourages the eventual elimination of nonconformities.
Respectfully, we would like to request that Revised Zoning Draft Code not be adopted until these provisions from the existing Zoning Code be reinstated.
Thank you,
Peter Scott
Candice Pannetier
1905 Birch Ave
Agenda Item #11.1.
Mark Smithers
1819 Vallejo Street
St Helena
To Our mayor and council members
There are two very significant changes proposed for the St Helena Small Winery Ordinance that currently protects neighborhoods from becoming industrialized. You may not be fully aware of this as the changes are buried in the zoning changes passed by the Planning Commission and are now up for your approval.
The first area of the ordinance proposed for change is the requirement that the owner lives on the premises. To review the intent of the regulation:
17.22.230 Small Wineries
A. Purpose. The purpose of the small winery regulations is to:
1. Promote and implement the policies of the General Plan to preserve agricultural land uses within the City;
2. Support the economic feasibility of continuing agricultural use of the land where individual property owners can process grape crop into wine within a privately owned facility; and
3. Support the establishment of smaller, locally owned and operated wineries where an existing residential use exists.
It is important for the family small winery owner to live on the premises as the winery itself is an industrial activity within a neighborhood and as such neighbors are able to have direct communications with their winery neighbor if there are issues due to noise, odors, non-approved activities, etc. Additionally, if the city were to remove the family small winery owner living on the premises requirement, this would encourage more second home ownership. Our housing shortage is significant. Any change to our regulations that would create more absentee owners would worsen the situation. (Additionally, as we saw with short-term rentals, corporate ownership of small neighborhood wineries would open up pandora’s box. The small winery home would be a revolving door of guests not concerned with adjacent families and neighbors.) If you remove the owner occupied requirement the property could be leased out, the house could be leased out to someone different from the winery operator, the winery operator could be from out of state or out of the country for that matter, the house could have no primary residents, future residences place on vineyards to gain permits to build wineries could be too small for true family occupancy, etc. Small wineries are supposed to be local family wineries.
To remain within the spirit of the small winery ordinance and local family ownership requirements maybe section E. Development and Use Standards. 2 could be expanded to include any family members such as children, parents, or grandparents required to occupy the residence of the family winery owner. The request to remove the primary residence requirement is from one family that likely has certain estate planning requirements. Changing the residence requirement to read as follows would allow for a variety of winery owner/operator and primary residence occupancy within a family. Suggest the following:
E. Development and Use Standards.
2. Small wineries must be an accessory use to a residential use. The residential use must be the primary residence of the winery owner or its family members those being children, parents, grandparents, or grandchildren.
The above change would provide family small winery owners flexibility and retain protections of the neighborhoods these winery reside.
Agenda Item #11.1.
The second area of the ordinance proposed for change is the fruit sourcing. Currently 85% of the fruit for a small family winery is required to be grown from their own contiguous vineyards. To review the regulation:
E. Development and Use Standards.
5. A minimum of 85 percent of the grape source utilized for the wine produced at the small winery must be sourced from grapes grown on the premises, on parcels whose property lines adjoin the parcel upon which the small winery is located, or on any parcel that is immediately adjacent to or across any public or private street, excluding Highway 29, from that parcel upon which the small winery is located.
6. There must be a direct correlation between the yearly production limit of the small winery and the anticipated tonnage of grapes. A general guideline for establishing the production limit is 1,000 gallons per acre of vineyard planted on the property where the small winery is located; however, the general guideline can vary depending upon the crop yield of the particular vineyard.
The argument to change the grape sourcing requirement is suggested to be due to potential for crop damage, diseased vines, etc. If that is the issue, then I suggest you add in specific reasons into the regulations to source fruit outside the winery vineyard location only for purposes of disease or replanting. It is a slippery slope to simply strike the grape sourcing from the continuous vineyards owned by the winery owner. Owners may be motivate or allowed to let their vineyard properties go into disrepair, die off, and avoid replanting and thereby blighting the neighborhood.
The 85% requirement is important to ensure the small winery is “sized” properly and is consistent with the total size of the contiguously owned properties that include the small winery. If the city enlarged the sourcing to include any grapes from within St Helena city limits, you most likely would end up with some LARGE small wineries completely inconsistent and not in proportion to the size of the property hosting the small winery. The small winery would no longer be an accessory use to the residence and vineyards. Larger wineries require more deliveries, more visitors, more noise, more odors, etc. This could industrialize certain neighborhoods (Vallejo, Fulton, Scott, Sulphur Springs, South Crane, Pratt, upper Madrona, Dean York).
Of note, small wineries provide little to no revenue to our city. Small wineries sell wine to mailing list customers; sales tax is collected in the county the wine is received. The city doesn’t receive it. The city only receives 7% of your property tax payment; the rest goes to the school district and county. There is no benefit to our city to loosen the small winery ordinance rules.
City Council should not make piecemeal changes to our Small Winery Ordinance. These regulations went through much discussion and were developed to preserve our neighborhoods. There are some 120 sites (a minimum of five acres is required) within St Helena that could allow development of a small winery. If the city loosens the requirements intended to support small family wineries, many of the sites will be developed by speculators and corporations resulting in dramatic changes to St Helena and our wonderful neighborhoods.
Thank you for your service to our city and consideration of my suggestions.
Mark Smithers
Agenda Item #11.1.
From: EK
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Small Winery Ordinance
Date: Monday, October 9, 2023 1:06:13 PM
Dear esteemed mayor and city council members,
I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposed changes in the Small Winery Ordinance.
I cannot improve on the points Mark Smithers made in his thoughtful letter to the Star, and so I will echo them here:
1. Of paramount importance is the requirement that the owner live on the property. This ensures that the industrial activities associated with making wine will remain in proportion to the site and any potential negative effects on neighbors will be promptly addressed.
2. Requiring the onsite residence of the owner is also a safeguard against more secondhome ownership, something that has been proven to have detrimental effects on a community.
3. Also important is the 85% local fruit sourcing stipulation. This further ensures that the use of the property and winery remain in keeping with the residential nature of the location.
I hope you will consider these factors and decide in favor of maintaining Saint Helena’s character over changing the SWO.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.
Sincerely,
Ellen Kieval
Agenda Item #11.1.
From: Mariam Hansen
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Oct 10 Council Meeting RE: Zoning Code Update Date: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:39:15 PM
Dear City Council,
This letter is submitted as my personal opinion and not an officially approved policy of the St.
Helena Historical Society.
How many modern farmhouses do we want to dominate the cultural landscape of our historic town? How many more historic homes do we want to see demolished? How many more purchasers of St. Helena historic properties will we allow to demolish our heritage? These are the issues the HP Overlay Zoning seeks to address. It only applies to select properties.
Look how much of our cultural landscape will soon be gone:
855 Pratt, the two story white mansion by the railroad tracks, is under review for demolition.
The Rossi home owned by Berchtold at Madrona & Fir Hill under review demolition.
The modest house at 1504 Stockton under review for demolition by Cavin Investments. 1237 Sylvaner under review for demolition
1766 Sulphur Springs " "
1516 Sulphur Springs " "
2484 Spring Mtn Road demolition approved
1310 Hudson demolition approved
1512 Stockton demolition approved
1420 Allyn Avenue demolition approved
The whole town is being replaced one by one. All our cultural landscape is in danger. We must save it now, starting with approving the HP Overlay Zoning tonight and continuing with an Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Mariam Hovanesian Hansen
Agenda Item #11.1.
Lone Cypress Consulting, LLC
Erik V. Lundquist, AICP, 2105 Main Street, Napa, CA 94559, Phone 707.888.6386, [email protected] Via Email
October 9, 2023
City of St. Helena
Planning Department
c/o Maya DeRosa
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
(707) 968-2659
Re: Comprehensive Zoning Code Update – Minor Modifications Dear Ms. DeRosa,
We represent and work with several landowners in the City that are interested in further development of their property, and are faced with navigating these new rules. In our review of the proposed regulations, we noticed an opportunity for further refinement that would benefit the landowners and the city. Assuch, we are requesting that the City Council consider two items at its October 10, 2023 public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update: (1) a change to the proposed Table 17.11.010.A Types of Minor Modification to include Floor Area as a development standard that may warrant minor modification, and (2) the addition of a new section 17.11.15 Major Modifications to Development Standards to accommodate circumstances that merit more significant changes than those listed under minor modifications but do not rise to the level of a variance. Exhibit A, attached to this letter, provides the specific language that we request the City Council incorporate into the Zoning Code.
Table 17.11.010.A as proposed omits consideration of Floor Area as a category for modification, while allowing almost every other category of development standard to be adjusted. It doesn’t make sense to single out Floor Area as un-adjustable if every other standard is malleable. We therefore suggest that the table include an increase, in the A-20 District, to “Max. Ground Level Floor Area” and “Max. Second Floor Area.”
We also suggest adding a Major Modifications process within the Zoning Code. This would provide processing and design flexibility for properties with unique circumstances and would close the gap such that there is not such a huge leap from a Minor Modification to a Variance. The major modification category would allow greater design flexibility especially with respect to projects proposed on larger parcels in the A-20 District.
We believe the suggested revisions to the draft comprehensive zoning code are reasonable, should be considered and incorporated into the Zoning Code. If you have any questions related to the revisions, please feel free to reach out.
Sincerely,
Erik Lundquist, AICP
Encl: Exhibit A, Chapter 17.11 Modifications and Variances CC: Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #11.1.
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED LANGUAGE FROM LONE CYRESS CONSULTING IS UNDERLINED IN RED.
Minor Modifications and Variances
17.11.10 Minor Modifications to Development Standards
Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to enable the Community Development Director to approve minor deviations from the Code standards when such requests constitute a reasonable use of property but are not otherwise permissible under the strict application of this Code. An authorization to approve a Minor Modification does not extend to making any changes in the uses permitted in any zoning district.
Applicability. The Community Development Director may grant a Minor Modification Permit from the requirements of this Code for the following types of modifications:
An increase in lot coverage 10%
A reduction of a designated setback. 20% or 1 foot, whichever is greater.
An increase in allowable building height. 5% or 2 feet, whichever is greater.
An increase Max. Ground Floor Area within A-20 District 20% An increase Max. Second Floor Area within A-20 District 20% Reduction in required open space on a lot. 10%
An increase of the allowed maximum height of a fence or wall located within a designated setback area.
10% or 1 foot, whichever is
greater
Where a majority of lots are developed with single-family residences with non-conforming setbacks, new buildings or structures may conform to the pattern established by the majority of the existing buildings or structures in the same block. This is most likely to occur in older historic neighborhoods.
Determined on a case-bycase basis
To encourage the development of housing units for disabled persons with limited mobility, the Community Development Director may allow deviation from the prescribed standards of Division II or IV (Zones) where necessary to install features that facilitate access and mobility for disabled persons.
Determined on a case-bycase basis
Minor deviation from Façade objective dDesign sStandards for those situations where a project is requesting an exception from objective or other design standards. Determined on a case-bycase basis.
Table 17.11.010.A: Types of Minor Modifications
Types of Minor Modifications Maximum Modification
Agenda Item #11.1.
EXHIBIT A
Calculation of Modification. For example, if a site is 5,000 square feet in area, and it is required to provide 20 percent open space of a lot area, the site would be required to provide 1,000 square feet. A 10 percent deviation would equate to a reduction of 100 square feet of open space (1,000 x 10 percent = 100). As a result, the site would need to provide only 900 square feet of open space.
Precedents. Each Minor Modification application shall be reviewed on an individual case-by- case basis and the approval of a Minor Modification in one situation is not relevant to the City’s consideration of the approval of a Minor Modification in a new situation.
Application Requirements. An application for a Minor Modification shall be prepared, filed, and processed in compliance with Section 17.04.020, Application Process.
Responsibility. It is the responsibility of the applicant to comply with the findings of subsection G below.
Findings. The Community Development Director shall approve, with or without conditions, a Minor Modification application, only after the following findings are made:
The deviation is necessary due to the physical characteristics of the property and the proposed use or structure or other circumstances.
The Minor Modification is the minimum departure from the requirements of this Code necessary to grant relief to the applicant and would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or the zone in which the subject property is located.
Granting the requested deviation will not detract from the overall appearance of the neighborhood or immediate vicinity and will not impair the provision of adequate light, air, circulation, or visual openness.
The deviation, as proposed and conditioned, will achieve the general purposes of this Code or the specific purposes of the zoning district in which the project is located.
Review and Hearing Procedures.
The Community Development Director shall review the projects described in subsection B for conformance with the development criteria of the General Plan, the appropriate zoning district and all other development criteria established by the City as an element of the Minor Modification review process. Each application shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director to ensure that the proposal complies with all applicable requirements of this Title.
Prior to a decision on a Minor Modification, the City shall provide notice of a public hearing in compliance with Section 17.04.080, Public Hearing Agenda Item #11.1.
EXHIBIT A
Notice.
a. Public Notice. The notice shall state that the Community Development Ddirector will decide whether to approve or disapprove the Minor Modification application on a date specified in the notice, and that a public hearing will be held only if requested in writing by any interested person prior to the specified date for the decision.
b. Hearing. When a hearing is requested, notice of the hearing shall be provided in compliance with Section 17.04.080, Public Hearing Notice, and the Community Development Director shall conduct the public hearing prior to a decision on the application in compliance with Chapter 17.04, Common Procedures.
Notice of Action, Appeals, Expiration, Extensions, and Modifications.
Notice of Action. Notice of Action shall be provided pursuant to Section
17.04.100, Timing and Notice of Action.
Appeals. A decision of the Community Development Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission as provided in Chapter 17.12, Procedures for Appeals.
Expiration, Extensions and Modifications. Minor Use Permits may only be extended or modified as provided for in Section 17.04.140, Extension of Permits and Approvals and Section 17.04.150, Modifications to an Approval.
17.11.15 Major Modifications to Development Standards
Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to enable the Planning Commission to approve major deviations from the Code standards when such requests constitute a reasonable use of property but are not otherwise permissible under the strict application of this Code.
Typically, major modification will be granted in exchange for drawing properties closer to conformance with respect to other development standards than the modification requested. An authorization to approve a Major Modification does not extend to making any changes in the uses permitted in any zoning district.
Applicability. The Planning Commission may grant a Major Modification Permit from the requirements of this Code for the following types of modifications:
An increase in lot coverage 30%
An increase in lot coverage within A-20 District 50%
Table 17.11.15.A: Types of Major Modifications
Types of Major Modifications Maximum Modification
Agenda Item #11.1.
EXHIBIT A
An increase in max. ground floor area within the A-20 District 35% An increase in max. second floor area within the A-20 District 30% An increase in max. paved/hardscaped area within the A-20 District 50% D. Precedents. Each Major Modification application shall be reviewed on an individual caseby-case basis and the approval of a Major Modification in one situation is not relevant to the City’s consideration of the approval of a Major Modification in a new situation.
Application Requirements. An application for a Major Modification shall be prepared, filed, and processed in compliance with Section 17.04.020, Application Process.
Responsibility. It is the responsibility of the applicant to comply with the findings of subsection G.
Findings. The Planning Commission shall approve, with or without conditions, a Major Modification application, only after the following findings are made:
The deviation produces a more desirable design than the strict application of the Code by creating a better community environment through reducing overall bulk and mass, or preserving open space and agricultural lands.
The Major Modification is the minimum departure from the requirements of this Code necessary to grant relief to the applicant and would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or the zone in which the subject property is located.
Granting the requested deviation will not detract from the overall appearance of the neighborhood or immediate vicinity and will not impair the provision of adequate light, air, circulation, or visual openness.
The deviation, as proposed and conditioned, will achieve the general purposes of this Code or the specific purposes of the zoning district in which the project is located.
Review and Hearing Procedures.
1. Notice. Public hearings shall be property noticed in compliance with Section
17.04.080, Public Hearing Notice.
2. Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the Major Modification application and shall, at the conclusion of the public hearing, approve (with or without conditions), or deny the application in compliance with the requirements for conditional uses and other applicable Sections of this Code Notice of Action, Appeals, Expiration, Extensions, and Modifications.
Notice of Action. Notice of Action shall be provided pursuant to Section 17.04.100, Timing and Notice of Action.
Appeals. A decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council as provided in Chapter 17.12, Procedures for Appeals.
Agenda Item #11.1.
EXHIBIT A
Expiration, Extensions and Modifications. Minor Use Permits may only be extended or modified as provided for in Section 17.04.140, Extension of Permits and Approvals and Section 17.04.150, Modifications to an Approval.
Agenda Item #11.1.
October 6, 2023
City of St. Helena City Council
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Dear City Councilmembers,
Blue Zones Project Upper Napa Valley would like to express support for the City of St.
Helena’s comprehensive zoning code update. This update presents the city with an opportunity to create a more livable community for all residents.
Blue Zones Project supports changes and enhancements to the community’s built environment, which can be accomplished by revising zoning codes to create the type of community that residents envision. Adopting best practices in the city’s zoning codes can foster a more walkable and bikeable city, support affordable housing, and create a city where innovative businesses thrive.
In closing, we encourage City Council to adopt proven built environment best practices, prioritizing modes of active transportation and livable community development to align with the long-term needs and goals of the entire community.
In health,
Joaquin E. Razo Kelly Bond
Executive Director Public Policy Advocate
1422 Main Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #11.1.
Napa County Landmarks
937 Coombs Street
Napa, CA 94559
707-255-1836
napacountylandmarks.org
[email protected]
Napa County Landmarks advocates for the appreciation and preservation of historic buildings, sites and districts through educational programs, public policy, research, and technical assistance.
October 8, 2023
Mayor Paul Dohring
St. Helena City Council
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
RE: St. Helena Zoning Ordinance and Historic Preserva�on Overlay Dear Mayor Dohring,
I am wri�ng today on behalf of Napa County Landmarks (NCL), a non-profit organiza�on commited to the educa�on, advocacy, and promo�on of historic resources throughout the region.
St. Helena shines brightly as a jewel of Napa Valley, with its storied history mirrored in every architectural nuance, showcasing it as a living testament to California's rich past. Na�onally, an effec�ve Historic Preserva�on Overlay (HPO) is a pivotal development tool for communi�es, ensuring protec�on for invaluable resources o�en overlooked by conven�onal zoning provisions. The proposed St. Helena HPO supports smart growth by providing design standards that cer�fies exterior improvements honor the historic architectural features that contribute to a thriving community and make your city a one-of-akind des�na�on.
In conclusion, Napa County Landmarks endorses the City of St. Helena's Zoning Ordinance update and the Historic Preserva�on Overlay. We appreciate its role in protec�ng St. Helena's architectural treasures and aligning with the visions of the 2040 St. Helena General Plan, for�fying a unified approach to historic preserva�on that meets na�onal benchmarks.
I welcome the opportunity to collaborate on this issue. Please feel free to reach out at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Chris�ne Madrid French
Execu�ve Director
cc: Mariam Hovanesian Hansen, St. Helena Historical Society Maya DeRosa, City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.
St Helena City Council, 10 October 2023
“Guest house for rich A-holes”
The above is a quote from a Current member of the St Helena City Council. As I have struggled to figure out why it is so difficult and expensive to produce viable workforce housing solutions in our city I have reached out to the State (HCD), listened to podcasts, Taken a deep dive into our code and reached out to folks in other jurisdictions with similar challenges. I have spoken to about anyone with a pulse that is willing to take the time to consider both the nature of the challenge and the nitty gritty of the solutions that will begin to furnish the critical capacities in housing that we will need to be sustainable and will allow St Helena to thrive as a community.
I furnish the above quote not to make anyone uncomfortable (well perhaps just a little) but because I believe it stands as a relevant example of what I believe is a broken and unhealthy narrative that surrounds and informs our approach to this issue. That narrative (us verses them) will never serve as a roadmap to shake loose needed more viable and accessible housing.
I was combing through a cost estimate on the OTSH project making some headway on Pope street. See attached a small portion below. I would be happy to share more details of this and other projects should you be willing to take the time to better understand both the challenges and some of the possible solutions.
Redundant required water and sewer hook ups that require separate trenching and ongoing fees? Computing in the thousands of dollars? To what end? To feed the narrative that somehow allows those words to slip from our mouths and somehow warm our hearts (Guest houses for rich A-holes)? …..Really?
Instead, should we not be taking the time to consider (or even be willing to have the discussion) to understand that any pice of law that makes the creation of housing or ADUs or JADUs more and more costly at every turn simply makes it less and less accessible and nearly impossible to produce. Is “sticking it to the rich guy” (who will always be able to afford it) while being ambivalent to those struggling to build a place on their existing lot for a family member, a caregiver, or perhaps as a means to keep your house and move into a smaller unit and rent or provide housing a good plan? I do not believe it is.
I believe we as a community need to stand back a bit and self examine the narratives we sometimes reflexively and shortsightedly choose to feed and understand the consequences of those choices. This is why Code matters…Code is the problem…and Code is the solution.
Agenda Item #11.1.
St Helena City Council, 10 October 2023
Firmness commodity and delight?
I ask myself If I were an artist, a writer, a painter or a poet…or perhaps I was simply any person cherishing the varied tapestry that forms the town in which I live and work and that has become home to me and my family. And let’s say I aspired to endeavor in any of those expressions and believed that creativity and expression is a solemn and majestic life force that needs feeding and support and a healthy environment to thrive. Because I believe when it thrives it makes us richer as humans. I believe that those unencumbered expressions are what built the St Helena that we love. All of which occurred without “design standards”.
History also teaches us that those magnificent life forces regularly get brutalized and beaten back.
I ask myself why is this issue hard to understand? Why are St Helena’s not stirred to examine it and question why are we inserting this portion into code? Why up to this point is City staff and City Council not willing to discuss or debate its inclusion/insertion into law? Would you mandate that a writer inserted a climax at every seventh page? Or that the writer only write about certain subjects within tight margins? Or maybe it is just simpler to just ban or maybe just burn the book that offends (some?).
Would you mandate that a sculptor follow a mathematical stricture on negative space…trim must go here, doodads there…use these materials and be sure to start and stop and modulate in a certain way?
Do you believe there is, or will not, or should never be a next movement in painting or dance? Are there not new ways to gather and arrange lines and letters and words of poetry in ways that move us and allow us to see the world in new ways? Why is “architecture” or any pursuit whose design is to create healthy and uplifting spaces to live and breath, grow and thrive, in a way that brings joy, and that you share with your loved ones and work mates seen any differently?
Of course we are a nation of laws, and by that, we agree that there are both reasonable public health and safety concerns that wisely need adherence and at the same time understandable and definable borders and even some limits to our creativity and expression when they endanger someones safety or usurp others pursuit of their right to express. Not surprisingly we will not all agree on what is beautiful… nor should we understand that we have a right to enjoy everything that we see.
In the end “design standards” will not forge better buildings or a better environment. They will quash innovation and repress expression all the while sucking the joy and curtailing the power of creation and expression. I for one believe it is a good governments role to understand the difference and to provide the healthy habitat for our differences to stand as strengths and valuable contributors. I believe we should as a community stand as a bulwark against the forces that would homogenize and make us all uniform. I strongly believe the design standards section should be eliminated. I implore you to do so.
Sincerely,
Daniel Hale
Agenda Item #11.1.
St Helena City Council, 10 Oct 2023
Chicken or the egg or baby and the bathwater?
As we consider what seems the later stages of the Code update I believe we should also consider the correct and fair method to set it loose upon a mostly unsuspecting public. I believe it is critically important to understand that the draft code before us this evening is a wholly different document than was seen in its first viewing back when the code update process started, with entirely different ramifications upon actual projects.
If you were/are a professional engaging with clients (citizens of St Helena) or just a citizen engaged in the process of re-imagining your house or place of work you understand that any of the pieces in that process do not evolve in a day and in fact take months (in some cases years) and a great deal of effort and expense. How would you move the evolution of a project forward?
Professionals do their best to inform clients of the changing nature of code and how the change will effect the formation of their project(s). They have some advantage over your average citizen in understanding the lingo and interrelationships of the different applicable sections of code…but even they struggle to understand its sometimes complex nature.
Even if you were indefatigable in following the evolution of the Code update (and I congratulate you if you were) It would be nearly impossible to have accurately represented what the code in final form would be and how it would influence or perhaps entirely change an approach to a project. Which iteration of evolving code would you have based a functional engagement and contract /obligation to a client?
Of course we have to be able to consider and set a firm date at which we move forward with new code. I believe it is reasonable to consider and set an interim time period that displays future (approved) code and at what date applications will fall under scrutiny of new law and also reasonably respects the sincere personal and professional efforts, time and resources that have gone into projects underway while code has been evolving.
What is a correct time period? What is the minimal time that it takes a project to come together and evolve and be ready for submission for planning (much less a permit)? I believe three months is aggressive. In any case should it not be discussed/considered? Daniel Hale
Agenda Item #11.1.
From: Oliver Caldwell
To: Billy Summers; Lester Hardy; Anna Chouteau; Eric Hall; Paul Dohring Cc: cityclerk
Subject: [External] NO on amending the Small Winery Ordinance! Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:33:26 PM
RE: Council Hearing Tuesday Oct 10, 2023
Public Hearings 11.1 Introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the St.
Helena Municipal Code and Amending the Zoning Map to be consistent with the General Plan and Expand the Historic Preservation (HP) Overlay Zone.
Dear Mayor Dohring and Council Members Chouteau, Hardy, Hall and Summers, We are opposed to the proposed changes in the Small Winery Ordinance . . . which we found buried in the zoning changes passed by the Planning Commission and are now up for your vote. This Ordinance has a long history with much contentious debate and should have been given singular public review and not nestled within endless zoning text. Without reading Mark Smithers recent letter to the Star, we would have never caught it.
The intent of the original St Helena Small Winery Ordinance (SWO) was drafted to protect neighborhoods from becoming industrialized. By requiring home owner occupancy on the same property with their winery, it allowed adjacent neighbors an opportunity to directly take up their concerns should one's winery cause neighborly impacts.
A forklift beeping loudly into the night could be immediately and effectively addressed.
The residence requirement was a built-in safeguard and a key condition to the Ordinance that has worked for years and remains conditional to insure that our neighborhoods remain tranquil and livable. Take away this requirement and you can only be rationalizing and guessing at the outcome . . . and to whose benefit? Please vote NO on this proposal!
Thank you,
Oliver & Karen Caldwell
St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.
From: Polly Ogden
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] New Zoning Code
Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8:30:18 AM
I want to thank all who have worked on this endeavor which has been a difficult project to undertake given the many different aspects and interest groups affected. I believe Maya and her team endeavored to hear all sides and were open to suggestions and criticism. I am hopeful the new document will serve the City well. I can foresee the need for minor changes along the way, as nothing is ever entirely perfect. I hope there is room for discovery and a path for change, should that be the case.
I support its adoption.
Polly Ogden
Polly Ogden Associates
Design / Build
Po Box 963
St. Helena, CA 94574
Sent from Mail for Windows
Agenda Item #11.1.
From: Thomas W. Allen
To: Billy Summers; Lester Hardy; Anna Chouteau; Eric Hall; Paul Dohring Cc: cityclerk
Subject: Re: [External] Opposition to Amending the Small Winery Ordinance Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 1:04:22 PM
Dear Mayor Dohring and Council Members Chouteau, Hardy, Hall and Summers, I am opposed to the proposed changes in the Small Winery Ordinance because this issue should have been raised for specific public review, as a single issue, not one embedded within the lengthy proposed zoning ordinance changes. It is too important to be hidden from public scrutiny and broad community discussion.
Please vote NO on this proposal as written, and/or pull out the Small Winery language for separate and specific consideration by the public!
Thank you.
Thomas W. Allen
1703 Madrona Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Mobile 415-990-0240
[email protected]
Agenda Item #11.1.
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
To: Erika Opp
Subject: FW: [External] Public Comment Regarding Zoning Code Update Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:06:04 PM
From: Joshua Parke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 10:56 AM
To: Contact City Council <[email protected]>; Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Public Comment Regarding Zoning Code Update Dear Council,
Watching this process over the last several months has been discouraging and painful, honestly I think most of the design community has simply disengaged.
You seem to have swung back to using FAR for residential in an even more aggressive manner than previously. I think how far this ratio has swung back and forth is a strong indicator of how seemingly arbitrarily these decisions are being made. Regarding the current version please keep in mind this is California and people need to be able to be outside on their properties without burning in the sun.
Change the verbiage regarding covered areas that count toward FAR back to the current version that has the exception of “one long unenclosed side” instead three open sides as you have it now.
Maintain a differentiation between lot coverage and FAR that allows covered areas on property that don’t take away from conditioned space.
Please take into account previous comments regarding from which point FAR is measured within a structure, don’t penalize for thick walls that have better energy performance . Just calc it from the interior face of the structure.
If you’re requiring a step back for a front facade of a 2 story structure simply make it a requirement from a certain setback line forward. It makes zero sense that a house on a large lot that’s set back beyond 30’ from the front property line should have to step back it’s second story, that’s ridiculous.
I wish you would have had an individual or group of individual professionals that deal with processing code and creating projects on the daily involved from the start. This would have been such a better process and outcome.
Referencing the code and providing analysis at this point seems to be a wasted exercise. Relying on De Rosa, Wise Consulting, and Ponte to stitch this together has left a vacuous hole of aesthetic and functional implications and you need a mechanism in place to put the pieces back together after you adopt this (when response to public comment is so frequently “this is how it’s done in other municipalities” you know you have an issue). Please establish a reasonable approach to fixing this in Agenda Item #11.1.
the future after it’s adopted. A 10,000.00 fee to be paid by a citizen each time an issue with the code comes up is prohibitively expensive and a significant deterrent.
Sincerely,
Joshua Parke
Design Principal | Zwischen Studio
O 707.968.7207
C 206.218.5615
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Agenda Item #11.1.
From: Courtney Andrain
To: Billy Summers; Lester Hardy; Anna Chouteau; Eric Hall; Paul Dohring Cc: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Tuesday, Oct 10, 2023 Public Hearings Section 11.1 Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:40:50 PM
Council Members,
We have recently learned of some amendments proposed within the Title 17 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code that will be reviewed for approval at this evening’s meeting. Of concern is Amendment #8 - Small Wineries and the proposals to eliminate requirements regarding residency and grape sourcing.
We are fortunate to live on Scott Street and have two neighbors whose vineyards are farmed by contracted vineyard management companies. They are great neighbors, and we communicate extensively and positively about spraying schedules and other activities as they arise. They are sensitive to the same issues that we are as they live full time on their properties. I am sure that this is the case for neighbors who are adjacent to properties with winery facilities and the elimination of the residency requirement would be significantly detrimental to this level of communication and common objectives regarding the environs and atmosphere of their neighborhoods.
Likewise, eliminating the requirement for 85% on-premise grape sourcing for wines produced at a Small Winery, which supports a consistent winery scale and the ancillary services necessary to support it, creates a potential outcome of commercialization of a neighborhood with increased traffic with larger trucks and more general activity.
We recall that these amendments were proposed to prior council(s) and ultimately not approved due to overwhelming citizen concern. The same concerns have likely not abated.
We ask for your NO vote.
Thank you,
Courtney Andrain and Jim Anderson
Agenda Item #11.1.
Zoning Code Update
City Council Public Hearing:
October 10, 2023
6:00 PM
Agenda Item #11.1.
2 Today’s Agenda
1. Introduction and Zoning Code Accomplishments
2. Process Overview and Comment Trackers
3. Detailed Overview of Key Changes
4. Zoning Map
5. CEQA Memo
6. Issues
7. Recommended Action – Zoning Code and Zoning Map
8. Public Comment, Discussion, and Decision
9. Historic Preservation Overlay Map
10. Recommended Action – Historic Preservation Overlay
Map
11. Public Comment, Discussion, and Decision
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
3 What does the Zoning Code Accomplish?
1. Consistent with St. Helena General Plan
• Important implementation tool
• Adds new Mixed-Use zone consistent
with General Plan Land Use Element
2. Economic development tool
• Highest and best use on Main Street
• Design standards provide certainty
• Expanded list of uses and more by right
• Parking Exemption Overlay
3. Streamlines permit processes
• More staff level review
• Eliminates arbitrary major design review
findings - objective
4. Facilitates multi-family development
• New objective design standards
• Ministerial review
• Reduced parking
5. Compliant with federal, state, and case law
• Telecommunications Act
• Recent Ca. legislative actions on housing
• Sign code – Reed v. Gilbert, 2015
6. Ease-of-use
• Land use tables
• Illustrations and graphics
• Rules of measurement
Source: St. Helena Historical Society
Agenda Item #11.1.
4 What does the Zoning Code Accomplish?
1. Consistent with St. Helena General Plan
• Important implementation tool
• Adds new Mixed-Use zone consistent
with General Plan Land Use Element
2. Economic development tool
• Highest and best use on Main Street
• Design standards provide certainty
• Expanded list of uses and more by right
• Parking Exemption Overlay
3. Streamlines permit processes
• More staff level review
• Eliminates arbitrary major design review
findings - objective
4. Facilitates multi-family development
• New objective design standards
• Ministerial review
• Reduced parking
5. Compliant with federal, state, and case law
• Telecommunications Act
• Recent Ca. legislative actions on housing
• Sign code – Reed v. Gilbert, 2015
6. Ease-of-use
• Land use tables
• Illustrations and graphics
• Rules of measurement
Agenda Item #11.1.
5 Multi-year Process
We are
here.
Agenda Item #11.1.
6 Overview of Comment Trackers
• Track PC, CC, and Public Comments
• October 26, 2022
• November 16 , 2022
• December 7, 2022
• May 10, 2023
• Separate Trackers
• All public comments
• Mr. Dan Hale
• Mr. Joe McGrath
• Mr. Greg Desmond
• May 10th Joint PC/CC Meeting
• Comments were mostly inserted as
written – content maintained
• Gold background identifies
recommended edits to the Code
440+
comments
tracked
Agenda Item #11.1.
7 Table of Contents
Part I: General Provisions
Part II: Administration and
Procedures
Part III: District Regulations
Part IV: Citywide Standards
Part V: Uses and Definitions
Agenda Item #11.1.
8 Part I: General Provisions
• Part I includes:
• Title, Authority and Purpose
• Reserved
There are no substantive edits in this Part
Agenda Item #11.1.
9 Section 17.05.080, Minor Design Review
Subsection 17.05.080.B Applicability
• Subsection 8. Added – reconstruction of a singlefamily residence destroyed by an act of God.
Section 17.05.100, Short Term Rental Permit
Subsection 17.05.100.C Public Hearing and Procedures
• Subsection 1. Added that the Planning
Commission shall hold a public hearing for
discretionary review for a new STR Permit.
Part II: Administration and Procedures
Agenda Item #11.1.
10 Section 17.09.030, Nonconforming Uses
Subsection 17.09.030.F Certificate of Present Extent of Legal Nonconformity for Uses
• Allows an owner to apply for a certificate determining the present extent of a legal nonconforming use (also the Director under certain conditions). • Subsection 3. The PRD required review and approval by the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
• Subsection 4/5. Amended to make the Director the approval authority; Director must make a written report to the Planning Commission (which is posted to the consent agenda) who decides if they want to review/consider the application.
• Subsection 8. The Director may also refer the request to the Planning Commission for a decision at a noticed public hearing.
Part II: Administration and Procedures
Agenda Item #11.1.
11 Section 17.11.010, Minor Modifications and
Variances
Subsection 17.11.010 Minor Modifications to
Development Standards
• Table 17.11.010.A Types of Minor Modifications.
• Change minor deviation from façades to objective
design standards.
Part II: Administration and Procedures
Agenda Item #11.1.
12 Part III: District Regulations
• Part III includes:
• Establishment of Base Zoning Districts
• Residential Zoning Districts
• Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning
Districts
• Business and Industrial Zoning Districts
• Community Agricultural and Natural
Resource Zoning Districts
• Public and Open Space Zoning Districts
• Overlay Districts
• Specific to Uses
• Reserved
Substantive changes are included in the
underlined sections.
Agenda Item #11.1.
13 Section 17.15.020, Establishment of Base Zoning Districts Table 17.15.020.A Base Zoning Districts
• Added back the Low Density Residential One
Acre Minimum (LR-1A) zone – uses and
development standards with some updates.
Agenda Item #11.1.
14 Section 17.16.030, Development Standards
Table 17.16.030.B Development
Standards – Residential Zoning Districts
• LR-1A - Max Building Gross
Floor Area (excludes accessory
structures):
• Lots < 1 acre (New Table)
• Lots ≥ 1 acre, max. 6,069 sf
(same as current code)
• LR – adjusted max. gross floor
area lots ≥ 11,000 sf
• MR – added for small lot
development – 55% max lot coverage PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
15 Section 17.16.030, Development Standards
Table 17.16.030.B Development Standards –
Residential Zoning Districts
• MR - Added ground floor max. ceiling height
standard of 15 feet for principal structures.
• LR-1A and LR - Amended minimum interior side
setback upper stories from 10 feet to 5 feet.
Removed standard in the HR Zone.
• Amended – multi-family private ground floor
open space from 120 to 80 sf per unit in the MR
Zone and 120 to 60 sf per unit in the HR Zone.
• MR – Amended min. garage or carport setback
from a building façade from 10 feet to 5 feet.
• LR-1A and MR – removed max. primary building
footprint.
• LR, LR-1A, MR – Amend min. interior side
setback for upper floors from 10 to 9 feet
Source: iStock
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
16 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
What has Changed or Been Deleted?
A.Design Standards for All Residential
Development Types
2. Required 2nd-story stepbacks, LR and
MR
3. Building Orientation
4. Wall Planes (formerly Bldg.
Transparency)
Roofline and Roof Design
5. Exterior Building Materials
6. Landscaping
9. Private Outdoor Open Space
10. Required Play Areas
Sustainability and Energy Efficiency
B. Design Standards Specific to Small
Lot Development
4. Small Lot Entrances
7. Small Lot Landscaping
8. Small Lot Private Open Space
C. Design Standards Specific to MultiFamily Development
1. Design
3. Entry Design
4. Common Outdoor Recreation Space
Universal Design
Note: The presentation only includes the recommendations from the PC in the August 15th hearing; all other ODS standards are the same as those presented in the last PC/CC Joint meeting in May.
Agenda Item #11.1.
17 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
Section 17.16.040.A.2 Required Second Story
Step-backs in the LR and MR Districts
• Removed – required stepbacks from rear.
• Added – an exception for front elevations
with porches that have a minimum depth of
68 feet that extends 80 percent or more of
the width of the front elevation, excluding a
garage.
• Added – this subsection only applies to new
single-family residences.
• Added – cross reference to Table 17.16.030
regarding required side yard second story
stepback.
PC
edits
Agenda Item #11.1.
18 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
Section 17.16.040.A.4 Wall Planes
• Replaces former “Building Transparency”
standards.
• New standards for the articulation of a
building’s wall.
• Added requirements for design features and
materials to reduce building massing.
• Amended – Director approval for building
offsets, roof overhangs, bay windows, and
use of materials to reduce building mass.
• Amend – unbroken wall plane dimension from
10 to 12 feet (more efficient construction)
Source: Lancia Homes
Source: Rocket Mortgage
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
19 Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
Section 17.16.040.A.8 Parking Frontage
• Adjust the standard to allow for exceptions for
irregular lots (i.e., a pie-shaped lot) with a
narrow frontage, e.g. Doris Court.
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
20 Section 17.16.040.B.6 Small Lot Parking and Access
• Added – garages facing an alley that is ≤ 20 feet
in width, the garage must be setback a min. of
5 feet from the property line to facilitate
turning movements.
Section 17.16.040, Design Standards
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
21 Section 17.17.030, Use Regulations
Table 17.17.030.A Use Regulations – Commercial
and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
• Added micro-distilleries as allowed use in the
CB, SC, and MU zones subject to CUP in all
commercial zones
• Amend End Note #6: Rooftop bars uses are
allowed subject to CUP in CB and MU zones.
• Delete these bullets of prohibited uses in CB
zone in End Note 4:
• Establishments primarily preparing beverages for
food or consumption off the premises.
• Drive-in or walk-up window for take-out service.
Source: Glen Blair Bar Experience, CO
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
22 Section 17.17.030, Use Regulations
Table 17.17.030.A Use Regulations – Commercial
and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
• Add new End Note #1: Clarifies that the
10,000 sq ft floor area limitation for buildings
and uses only applies to Main Street Corridor
south of Adams Street.
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
23 Section 17.17.030, Development Standards
Table 17.17.030.B Development Standards –
Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
• Add for Max. Height, Principal Structure:
Max. height for buildings not on Main Street
may not exceed 46 feet.
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
24 Section 17.19.030, Development Standards
Table 17.19.030.B Development Standards – Community Agriculture and Natural Resource Zoning Districts
• Added new distinction based on lot area:
• Lots <2 acres – apply the standards of the LR-1A zone Lots 2 to ≤ 5 acres Lots > 5 acres
Density: 1 unit per 5 acres 1 unit per 5 acres
Max. Lot coverage: 0.5 acres 9,000 sf 1 acre 10,000 sf
Max 2nd story floor area: 35% of ground floor area 20% of ground floor area Max. ground level floor area: 4,500 sq ft 5,000 sq ft
(excludes acc. structures)
• Updated End Note 3:
No more than 0.25 acres for lots 2 - ≤5 acres and 0.5 acre for lots > 5 acres of any one parcel may be removed from potential, historical, or active agricultural use. All structures, driveways (except for a 16-foot wide driveway no greater than 2/3 the length of the parcel), parking areas, patios, pools, lawn areas, or other nonagricultural uses are included in the 0.25 acre or
0.5 acre maximum per parcel.
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
25 Section 17.19.030, Development Standards
Table 17.19.030.B Development Standards – Community Agriculture and Natural Resource Zoning Districts
• Added new Accessory structure height standard:
• Max 20. ft for a non-ADU accessory structure
• ADU – height refer to Section 17.22.030.E.9.
• Added new habitable space standard – End Note 4:
“The habitable space in accessory structures may not exceed 50% 25% of the gross floor area of the primary structure.”
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
26 Chapter 17.22, Specific to Uses
Section 17.22.030 Accessory Dwelling Units
• Inserted the City’s previously adopted ADU
standards consistent with Ca. Government
Code §§ 65852.2. and 65852.22.
• Subsection 17.22.030.G.2.a: Added detached
ADUs do not require a separate sewer
connection, provided:
• Adequate sewer capacity; and
• Cleaning/review of sewer lines with cctv
technology.
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
27 Chapter 17.22, Specific to Uses
Section 17.22.230 Small Wineries
E. Development and Use Standards
• Subsection 2: Removed the requirement that the
residential use must be the primary residence of the
winery owner. “Small wineries must be an accessory
use to a residential use.”
• Subsection 5: Amended the grape source
requirement:
• Deleted “a minimum of 85% of the group source
must be grown on premises or on the parcel of the
use”.
• Amended as … “grapes must be sourced from
within the City limits”. Source: Cellar Angels
Agenda Item #11.1.
28 Part V: Definitions and Rules of Measurement
• Part V includes:
• Definitions of Terms
• Definitions of Uses
• Rules of Measurement
Substantive changes are included in the
underlined sections.
Agenda Item #11.1.
29 Chapter 17.32, Definitions of Terms
Chapter 17.32 Definitions of Terms
• Demolition. The intentional removal of all or part of a building or structure when a building or structure is a designated historic landmark or located in a designated historic district. In all other areas of the City “demolition” means the intentional destruction and removal of 50 percent or more of the enclosing finished floor exterior walls and 50 percent of the roof structure of any building or structure. The percentage of this definition is determined using linear feet of finished floor.
• Visibility Triangle. On a corner lot, the triangle formed by the property lines extended from the face of the curb to their intersection and a line connecting such property the face of the curb line extensions measured 35 feet from their point of intersection. If no curb exists, the edge of the roadway or vehicular travel area shall be used as the point of measurement.
[Illustration will also be updated]
PC
edit
PC
edit Agenda Item #11.1.
30 Chapter 17.34, Rules of Measurement
Section 17.34.030.E Decks
• Added clarification that deck height is
measured from the average elevation of the
ground below the deck to the top of the floor
of the deck.
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
31 Chapter 17.34, Rules of Measurement
Section 17.34.060.A Measuring Lot Coverage
• Delete the first sentence in the opening
paragraph; it incorrectly refers to lot coverage
as a “ratio” and is unneeded.
• Updated Figure 17.34.060. Determining Lot
Coverage
PC
edit
Agenda Item #11.1.
32 Zoning Map
Agenda Item #11.1.
33 Overview - CEQA Memo
Technical Memo Supporting Findings of Consistency
with the 2040 General Plan EIR
• Completed June 14, 2023
• Required to ensure consistency with General Plan
2040 and EIR
• Analysis showed new Zoning Code:
• Does not propose changes to land uses or levels of
development allowed under the GP or EIR
• Does not propose any by-right development that was not accounted for in the GP or EIR
• Conclusion:
• Updated Zoning Code is consistent with the scope of the EIR prepared for General Plan 2040.
• No new or substantially more adverse impacts would
occur.
• No technical changes or additions to the EIR are needed.
Agenda Item #11.1.
34 Issues
Issues as detailed on Page 15 of the Staff Report
Counting ADUs towards density: Council direction requested by Planning Commission
• Option 1: Do not allow both ADUs and JADUs to be included in the density calculation.
• Option 2: Do not allow JADUs to be included in the density calculation. • Option 3: No change from current code and allow both ADUs and JADUs to be counted toward density.
Agenda Item #11.1.
35 Issues
Issues as detailed on Page 15 of the Staff Report
HP Overlay and Requests for Removal from the Overlay: Information • At the August 15th Planning Commission hearing, a member of the public requested their property be excluded from the HP Overlay zone • City Attorney opined that it is not in the Planning Commission’s purview in a Code adoption hearing to remove properties from the HP Overlay zone • Proper approach is after the Zoning Code has been adopted, a property owner may apply to remove their property from the HP Overlay using the procedure established in Section 17.10.030 (Amendment or Recission of Historic Designation).
Agenda Item #11.1.
36 Recommended Action
The St. Helena Planning Commission recommended that the City Council review the draft updated Zoning Code, Title 17, and:
1. Find that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, all environmental impacts of the City of St. Helena Zoning Code Update have been addressed within the FEIR for the 2040 General Plan EIR;
2. Adopt an ordinance amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the St. Helena Code (ZOA 2023-001) incorporating the revisions noted in the Errata sheet attached to this report; and
3. Amend the zoning map to be consistent with the General Plan land use map (ZMA 2023-001)
Agenda Item #11.1.
37 Thank you
1. Public Comment
2. City Council Questions/Discussion
3. City Council feedback on the proposed ADU
density calculation
4. City Council Decision
Agenda Item #11.1.
38 Thank you!
Agenda Item #11.1.
39 Historical Preservation Overlay (HPO) Map
Agenda Item #11.1.
40 Recommended Action
The St. Helena Planning Commission recommended that the City Council review the draft updated Zoning Code, Title 17, and:
1. Amend the zoning map to implement an expanded Historic Preservation Overlay District (ZMA 2023-001).
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
From: John Hawkins
To: Billy Summers; Lester Hardy; Anna Chouteau; Eric Hall; Paul Dohring Cc: cityclerk
Subject: [External] PLEASE NO on amending the small winery ordinance Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:11:21 PM
I agree with Mark Smithers and Oliver Caldwell. Amending the small winery ordinance is a terrible idea with the public having a chance to weigh in. Buried in zoning text is NOT the way to do it.
John Hawkins
St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Department: Administration
DATE: October 10, 2023
FROM: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Presentation of Opinion Research Related to
Consideration of a March 2024 General Obligation Bond
Revenue-Generating Local Ballot Measure and Direction
to Staff.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Direct staff to place a General Obligation Bond measure on the March 2024 ballot.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
July 25, 2023 City Council authorized an Agreement with FM3 for Opinion Research and an Agreement with
TeamCivX for Electoral Feasibility of a Revenue Measure or Revenue Measures for the March 2024 Ballot.
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
To provide data and analysis to City Council for
consideration of a March 2024 revenue-generating local
ballot measure.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this report. If City Council elects to proceed with the March 2024 GO Bond ballot
measure, there will be costs associated with the election.
There is $80,000 designated for these costs in the adopted FY 2023-24 budget.
BACKGROUND:
Consistent with City Council Goal 1 - Financial Sustainability and Goal 2 - Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability, the City Council has received several reports on financing and revenue options to address City infrastructure and staff deficiencies. On February 28, 2023, the City Council received a presentation from BakerTilly that provided financial projections and warned about the need to increase revenues and/or further adjust service levels. The presentation provided several ways of dealing with the financial situation including reducing expenditures, engaging more aggressively in shared services, and increasing various types of fees and taxes. The key conclusion was that if community expectations are to be met, simply addressing the fiscal gap by only reducing expenditures will not work in the long run and new revenue stream(s) would need to be considered.
As a follow-up to the February 28, 2023 City Council meeting, on May 23, 2023, a report was brought to Council that further discussed each of the revenue options and City Council directed to staff to further pursue the Real Property Transfer Tax and other revenue enhance options as needed. In response to this direction, staff recommended several actions including:
Agenda Item #12.1.
Update of the Fee Schedule and Impact Fees;
Sale of assets including real property for possible development of affordable housing and/or other economic activities;
Possible General Obligation Bond to address the need to improve roads, sidewalks, and provide for multiple evacuation routes; and Possible Property Transfer Tax to address immediate monetary need to fund routine maintenance of parks and City facilities, and the provision of general City operations and services.
Community expectations are not being met and there is a need for investment in roads, sidewalks, evacuation routes, environmental sustainability, quality of life, and overall staffing, etc. While the financial outlook shows short-term stability within the current staffing and service model since expenditures are being kept low intentionally. The lower expenditures results in lower staffing levels, uncompetitive compensation, vacancies, lack of investment in technology, maintenance of parks, and other City facilities. There are also significant long-term challenges to address including unfunded needs consistent with Council Goals and community expectations.
On July 25, 2023, staff brought forth a report to Council to authorize two professional services agreements for opinion research and electoral feasibility of a revenuegenerating ballot measure (FM3 and TeamCivX). Because of limitations on when certain revenue measures can be placed on a ballot for consideration, City Council directed as follows:
1. Move forward with opinion research for a March 2024 General Obligation (GO) Bond which would enable the City to fast-track projects such as street/road improvements, downtown sidewalk project, and/or provide repair to or new bridges/access ways;
2. Move forward with opinion research for a November 2024 Charter City/Real Property Transfer Tax (will be conducted in March/April 2024 and will require additional contracts with TeamCivX and FM3); and
3. Established a City Council Revenue Enhancement Ad Hoc Committee comprised of Vice Mayor Hall and Councilmember Summers to assist with: setting opinion research questions, develop ballot language, and, with the Real Property Transfer Tax and corresponding Charter Requirement, draft a charter for City Council consideration.
DISCUSSION:
FM3 Research has completed public opinion research related to a March 2024 potential General Obligation Bond (GO Bond) ballot measure. GO Bonds are a useful financial method that local governments, including St. Helena, have relied on to assist in financing infrastructure projects because of their low borrowing costs and widespread investor appeal. For California cities, GO Bonds are secured by a promise to levy ad valorem property taxes (property taxes based on the assessed value of the property) in Agenda Item #12.1.
an unlimited amount as necessary to pay debt service. Voters approve the maximum amount of debt (bonds) that can be issued. The ad valorem taxes levied to pay debt service on the City GO Bonds are in addition to the one percent general ad valorem property tax.
FM3 Research surveyed support for a bond measure to improve roads and enhance road safety infrastructure that would generate $58 million over 30 years, resulting in an annual assessment averaging approximately $67.00 per $100,000 of assessed value.
To be enacted, a GO Bond requires 2/3 voter approval.
FM3 is presenting to City Council the analysis and interpretation of the results of the opinion research. The slides that will be used for the presentation are attached to this report. FM3 Research will also be available to answer City Council questions.
Next Steps
If City Council recommends proceeding with the March 2024 GO Bond Measure, the Council would conduct a first reading of a potential Ordinance on October 24, 2023 and a second reading on November 14, 2023.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
St. Helena Bond Measure Survey Analysis - Presentation
Agenda Item #12.1.
1 City Council
Potential Bond Measure
October 10, 2023
Anil Comelo, City Manager
April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
FM3 Research
Agenda Item #12.1.
2 Agenda
1. Receive opinion research data for March
2024 GO Bond
2. Provide direction to staff
Agenda Item #12.1.
3 Current Fiscal Situation
• Insufficient money for investment in roads, sidewalks, evacuation routes, environmental sustainability, quality of life, and overall staffing etc.
• Strong reserves and stable revenues
• Community expectation not being met
• Expenditures are being kept low
• Thus, lack of investment in technology, equipment,
staffing, competitive compensation, training, etc.
Agenda Item #12.1.
4 Current Fiscal Impact
• Inability to serve community promptly
• Insufficient staff to address resident requests
• Inefficient processes
• Less accessibility/ease for community
• Lack of maintenance of parks and City facilities
Agenda Item #12.1.
5 Revenue Picture
• Sourcing grant funds
• Updating Impact Fees and other Fees
• Cost containment and efficiency
• Economic activity and tourism
• Taxes
Agenda Item #12.1.
Key Findings of a Citywide Survey
Conducted September 11 – October 1, 2023
220-6859
St. Helena Voter Attitudes
Toward a Proposed Bond Measure
Agenda Item #12.1.
7 Dates September 11 – October 1, 2023
Survey Type Dual-mode Voter Survey
Research Population Likely March 2024 voters in St. Helena Total Interviews 305
Margin of Sampling Error ±5.7% at the 95% Confidence Level Contact Methods
Data Collection Modes
Survey Tracking 2016 & 2021
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding) Survey Methodology
Text
Invitations
Telephone
Calls
Email
Invitations
Telephone
Interviews
Online
Interviews
Agenda Item #12.1.
8 Q1a.
I am going to read you a list of organizations. Please tell me if you approve or disapprove of the job being done by the organization.
Voters are split in their evaluation of
City government.
6%
12%
7%
45%
39%
36%
30%
24%
28%
17%
17%
22%
8%
6%
2023
2021
2016
Strng. Appr. Smwt. Appr. Smwt. Disappr. Strng. Disappr. Don't Know Total Appr.
Total
Disappr.
50% 46%
51% 41%
44% 50%
St. Helena City Government Overall
Agenda Item #12.1.
9 Q1b.
I am going to read you a list of organizations. Please tell me if you approve or disapprove of the job being done by the organization.
Three in five approve of
the City Council’s performance.
The St. Helena City Council
6%
13%
7%
55%
37%
43%
20%
24%
26%
13%
16%
16%
6%
11%
8%
2023
2021
2016
Strng. Appr. Smwt. Appr. Smwt. Disappr. Strng. Disappr. Don't Know Total Appr.
Total
Disappr.
61% 33%
50% 39%
50% 42% Agenda Item #12.1.
10 The local economy, the condition of roads,
downtown sidewalks and infrastructure are rated
the top problems facing the city.
Q5. I’m going to read you a list of things some people say may be problems facing St. Helena. Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, a somewhat serious problem, or not a problem for St. Helena residents. ^Not Part of Split Sample 33%
38%
36%
33%
45%
38%
30%
32%
33%
20%
11%
16%
18%
12%
18%
44%
37%
39%
41%
27%
32%
35%
31%
27%
36%
37%
31%
23%
24%
17%
21%
22%
18%
18%
18%
25%
26%
29%
25%
37%
23%
32%
22%
20%
37%
7%
6%
10%
7%
5%
9%
6%
27%
17%
34%
30%
23%
5%
5%
15%
5%
^Local roads in need of repair
^The condition of downtown sidewalks
^The condition of local infrastructure
The cost of housing
The future of our local water supply
Drought
Water shortages
Waste and inefficiency in City government
Traffic congestion
The impact of visitors
^A lack of fire preparedness
Crime
^Slow emergency response times
The amount you pay in local taxes
Ext. Ser. Prob. Very Ser. Prob. Smwt. Ser. Prob. Not Too Ser. Prob. Don't Know Ext./Very Ser. Prob.
76%
75%
74%
74%
72%
70%
64%
63%
61%
56%
48%
47%
41%
36%
35%
The health of our local small businesses
and economy
Agenda Item #12.1.
11 Over time, concerns about downtown sidewalks, crime, and local roads and infrastructure have increased most.
Q5. I’m going to read you a list of things some people say may be problems facing St. Helena. Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, a somewhat serious problem, or not a problem for St. Helena residents. ^Not Part of Split Sample Problem
(Extremely/Very Serious Problem) 2016 2021 2023 Difference (2021-2023)
^The condition of downtown sidewalks 26% 52% 74% +22%
Crime 4% 22% 41% +19%
^Local roads in need of repair 61% 58% 75% +17%
^The condition of local infrastructure -- 58% 74% +16%
The impact of visitors -- 33% 48% +15%
The health of our local small businesses and economy -- 69% 76% +7% Traffic congestion 50% 49% 56% +7%
Waste and inefficiency in City government 47% 54% 61% +7% The cost of housing 57% 68% 72% +4%
^Slow emergency response times -- 34% 36% +2%
^A lack of fire preparedness -- 48% 47% -1%
The amount you pay in local taxes 30% 40% 35% -5%
The future of our local water supply -- 83% 70% -13%
Water shortages -- 78% 63% -15%
Drought -- 84% 64% -20%
Agenda Item #12.1.
12 Seven in ten see a need for additional funding
for City services.
Q6.
In your personal opinion, do you think there is a great need, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funds to provide the level of City services that St. Helena residents need and want? 25%
25%
28%
45%
42%
38%
16%
13%
11%
9%
13%
18%
5%
7%
5%
2023
2021
2016
Great Need Some Need A Little Need No Real Need Don't Know Great/ Some
Need
A Little/
No Real
Need
70% 25%
66% 27%
66% 28% Agenda Item #12.1.
13 Two-thirds see a need for funding for
St. Helena infrastructure specifically.
Q7.
Do you think there is a great need, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funds to address the condition of St. Helena infrastructure? 32%
34%
36%
39%
19%
15%
9%
7% 5%
2023
2021
Great Need Some Need A Little Need No Real Need Don't Know Great/ Some
Need
A Little/
No Real
Need
68% 28%
73% 23% Agenda Item #12.1.
14 Introducing the Measure
Agenda Item #12.1.
15 Ballot Language Tested
Q2. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? St. Helena Safe Infrastructure and Emergency Evacuation Measure. To fix potholes and repair/repave streets;
improve and enhance evacuation routes during fires and
floods; maintain, repair, replace and improve roadways
and infrastructure; improve 911 emergency response
times; and improve sidewalk safety/accessibility for
pedestrians and the disabled; shall the City of St. Helena’s measure authorizing $58 million in bonds, levying
approximately $67 per $100,000 of assessed value, raising about $3.8 million annually while bonds are outstanding, requiring audits and citizen oversight, be adopted?”
Agenda Item #12.1.
16 27%
35%
4%
3%
8%
14%
9%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Two-thirds back the proposed
bond measure, though support is soft.
Q2. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? Total
No
25%
Total
Yes
66%
Agenda Item #12.1.
17 Support is motivated by the condition of roads
and the perceived need for improvements.
Q3a.
In a few words of your own, why would you vote YES on this measure? 33%
24%
17%
11%
10%
10%
7%
4%
Road repair/The streets need it
City in bad condition/need improvements
Need to upgrade infrastructure
Need to fix sidewalks
Needed/It's overdue
Improve safety
General positive
For the money/Underfunded
(Open-ended; Asked of Yes Voters Only, n=202)
Agenda Item #12.1.
18 Verbatim Comments from Supporters
Q3a. In a few words of your own, why would you vote YES on this measure? Roads are in horrible condition
and we need improvement.
I would rather have
our challenges as a
city resolved with
bond measures
than thinking that
money from hotel
taxes will solve the
issues.
Things need to be
fixed in this town,
especially roads.
Streets are in desperate need of repair.
It's shameful the condition of our
streets.
I think there's some
deferred maintenance…
there's a lag about how
it is maintained.
The city has
horrible
potholes I've
had people
fall in the
street.
Our roads and sidewalks are in terrible
condition and we don't have the City
revenue to take care of them.
Our infrastructure
is in desperate
need of repairs.
This is long
overdue!
There is a lot of
work that needs
to be done to
improve the
safety of the
pedestrians and
to fix the pothole
issues.
Agenda Item #12.1.
19 Those opposed worry about mismanagement of
funds and high taxes.
Q3b.
In a few words of your own, why would you vote NO on this measure? 38%
32%
20%
6%
Money mismanagement/
Nothing getting done
High taxes
Too expensive
Roads/Infrastructure
(Open-ended; Asked of No Voters Only, n=76)
Agenda Item #12.1.
20 Verbatim Comments from Opponents
Q3b. In a few words of your own, why would you vote NO on this measure? I have very little appetite to pay
additional property taxes when
longtime residents will shoulder
very little of the tax burden to
fund the improvements.
Because we already pay taxes to
do those things and still haven't
been able to do it.
The City Council has been
pushing this down the
road for last 10 years.
Citizens have paid for this
about 5 or 6 times.
I don't think
that it is
fiscally
responsible.
City government is not strategic in
the spending of funds. Citizens
oversight is not given proper status
and is overly controlled by the city
government.
We already agreed to high sales
tax and other measures and
agreed to two other tax
increases and haven't received
the results.
It’s a bond
measure is not
the right way to
raise the funds
to do it.
I cannot
afford the
increase in
my taxes.
Fixing potholes is
something that should be
done out of normal
operating expenses.
Agenda Item #12.1.
21 A smaller bond amount does not
yield materially greater support.
Q2 & Q2/Q4 Combined.
Suppose that instead of authorizing $58 million in bonds, levying approximately $67 per $100,000 of assessed value, the measure authorized $35 million in bonds, levying approximately $41 per $100,000 of assessed value with fewer projects included. In that case, if the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? 32%
28%
3%
2%
8%
15%
12%
27%
35%
4%
3%
8%
14%
9%
$58 Million Bond $35 Million Bond
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
No
25%
Total
Yes
66%
Total
No
25%
Total
Yes
63%
Agenda Item #12.1.
22 43%
39%
29%
39%
38%
30%
28%
37%
39%
47%
34%
35%
40%
42%
17%
19%
19%
16%
21%
18%
23%
5%
9%
11%
7%
Ensuring all funds are used only in
St. Helena
Repaving streets
Repairing local roads and potholes
Repairing downtown sidewalks
Maintaining St. Helena's infrastructure
Improving road safety for bicyclists,
drivers, and pedestrians
Protecting and maintaining
fire department response times
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Ext./Very Impt.
80%
77%
75%
74%
73%
70%
70%
Q8. Split Sample
Ensuring all funds stay in St. Helena, repaving streets, and repairing local roads are voters’ top priorities.
I am going to read you a list of ways in which the funds generated by the bond measure we have been discussing could be spent, and also provisions that could be included. Please tell me how important that provision or use of funds is to you personally: is it extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important? Agenda Item #12.1.
23 29%
26%
30%
27%
24%
22%
22%
40%
42%
36%
39%
38%
39%
39%
21%
26%
24%
19%
31%
26%
26%
9%
6%
8%
14%
6%
9%
10%
Providing safe evacuation routes in case
of fire, flooding, or a natural disaster
Repairing aging bridges
Maintaining public safety
Helping ensure safe routes to school
for children
Maintaining parks and recreation
Improving fire protection services
Improving 911 emergency medical/
fire protection
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Ext./Very Impt.
68%
68%
66%
66%
63%
61%
60%
Q8. I am going to read you a list of ways in which the funds generated by the bond measure we have been discussing could be spent, and also provisions that could be included. Please tell me how important that provision or use of funds is to you personally: is it extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important? Split Sample
Providing safe evacuation routes and repairing aging bridges are “very important” to more than two-thirds of voters.
Agenda Item #12.1.
24 27%
24%
19%
16%
15%
19%
9%
12%
32%
34%
39%
36%
34%
30%
29%
25%
28%
30%
26%
30%
35%
20%
24%
38%
12%
10%
15%
14%
15%
21%
27%
23%
10%
12%
Reducing traffic congestion
Improving wildfire response and
preparedness
Protecting local property values
Replacing aging bridges
Improving accessibility for the disabled
Building a bridge at Adams Street
Extending Oak Ave to Grayson Ave
Replacing the Pratt Avenue Bridge
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Ext./Very Impt.
59%
59%
58%
53%
49%
48%
38%
36%
Q8. I am going to read you a list of ways in which the funds generated by the bond measure we have been discussing could be spent, and also provisions that could be included. Please tell me how important that provision or use of funds is to you personally: is it extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important? Split Sample
Extending, building, and replacing
bridges rank lowest as priorities.
Agenda Item #12.1.
25 Segmenting the Electorate
Agenda Item #12.1.
26 66%
70%
62%
25% 23%
27%
9% 7%
11%
Initial
Vote
After
Positive Messages After All Messages
Total Yes
Total No
Undecided
Over three in five voters consistently
support the bond measure.
Q2, Q10 & Q12. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? Agenda Item #12.1.
27 Segmenting the Electorate by
Consistency of Support
Consistent
Yes
58%
Swing
21%
Consistent
No
20%
Consistent Yes: Voters who
consistently indicated they would
vote “yes” on the measure
Consistent No: Voters who
consistently indicated they would
vote “no” on the measure
Swing: Voters who do not fall into
any of the other categories –
remaining consistently undecided or
switching positions
The following slide shows demographic
groups that disproportionately fall into
one category or the other.
Agenda Item #12.1.
28 Messaging
Agenda Item #12.1.
29 Q9. I am going to read you some statements made by supporters of this ballot measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support this measure. 38%
37%
35%
35%
35%
35%
34%
33%
33%
32%
26%
39%
38%
42%
40%
39%
37%
40%
41%
33%
40%
40%
77%
75%
77%
75%
74%
73%
74%
75%
67%
71%
66%
Sidewalks
Deferred Maintenance
Accountability/Local Control
Property Values
Visitors
Fire
Street Conditions
Disability
Public Safety
Safe Routes to School
Bridges
Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
The message on the condition of sidewalks and
deferred maintenance are most convincing.
Agenda Item #12.1.
30 Conclusions
Agenda Item #12.1.
31 Conclusions
• St. Helena voters approve of the job being done by City government and the City Council.
• Broad majorities of voters see a need for additional funding for City services and infrastructure.
• Voters place the highest priority on ensuring funds stay local and repairing downtown sidewalks, roads, and infrastructure. • Support fluctuates with messaging and drops below the twothirds threshold after critical statements. • Overall, the measure appears viable at this time, but support is within the margin of error of the two-thirds threshold and public education will be critical.
Agenda Item #12.1.
For more information,
contact:
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
Dave Metz
[email protected]
Lucia Del Puppo
[email protected]
Agenda Item #12.1.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Finance
DATE: October 10, 2023
FROM: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: (1) Consideration of the issuance of an approximate $2.975 million direct placement to a commercial bank or other
direct lender in the form of an Installment Sale Agreement or Loan Agreement that would assist the City in funding the final stages of construction of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Project S-52 and eliminate the need for interfund loans from the General Fund and Impact Fee Funds and (2) Proposed Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Hiring of Professionals for a Wastewater Financing Transaction.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Approve the attached Resolution and direct staff and the City’s Financing Team to bring the item back to the City Council at the November 14th meeting for formal review
and possible approval.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None.
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
The purpose is to make recommendation and seek Council
authorization to issue approximate $2.975 million direct placement loan for completion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant, instead of utilizing interfund loans from the General Fund and Impact Fee Funds, and approval of a resolution authorizing hiring of professionals for this wastewater financing transaction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BACKGROUND:
Staff would like to consider the issuance of an approximate $2.975 million direct placement to a commercial bank or other direct lender in the form of an Installment Sale Agreement or Loan Agreement (the “2023 Sewer Bond”). The 2023 Sewer Bond would assist the City in funding the final stages of construction of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Project S-52. Prior to the recent Proposition 218 process, the City was intending to do internal loans from both the Traffic Impact Fee Fund in the amount of $873,610, and the General Fund in the amount of $2,000,000, to provide enough funding to complete the project. It is now possible for the City’s Sewer Enterprise Fund to repay the proposed 2023 Sewer Bond directly without the need for internal loans.
This council item is a briefing on the proposed 2023 Sewer Bond seeking approval to both engage the City’s financing team and seek guidance to move forward on the proposed Agenda Item #13.1.
financing. The intent is to bring the item back to the City Council on November 14th with a recommended lender and all the required documentation to close the 2023 Sewer Bond.
The City currently has the following obligations outstanding in the Sewer Enterprise Fund:
California Statewide Communities Development Authority
Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds (Pooled Financing Program) Series 2005B
Principal Payments: October 1, 2023 to October 1, 2030
Remaining Amount: $940,000
Interest Rates: 4.30% to 4.375% (2023 to 2030)
Purpose: Funded $2,104,000 of Sewer System Improvements California Statewide Communities Development Authority
Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds
Series 2012
Principal Payments: October 1, 2023 to October 1, 2032
Remaining Amount: $917,392
Interest Rates: 3.00% to 4.00% (2023 to 2032)
Purpose: Funded Approximately $1,555,435 of Sewer System Improvements
City of St. Helena
2022 Installment Sale Agreement
Principal Payment: April 1, 2025
Remaining Amount: $9,362,000
Interest Rates: Variable (SOFR), Currently 4.798% (5.31% * 80% + 55bp)
Purpose:
Funded $9,362,000 of Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvements (To Be Repaid from Proceeds of USDA
Loan After Project Completion)
The proposed 2023 Sewer Bond would be on parity (equal right to the net revenue of the system) with the above listed outstanding obligations.
DISCUSSION:
Unless necessary, it is not a favorable practice to make internal loans across unrelated funds. Internal loans can be difficult to maintain since the lending fund may need the dollars it has otherwise lent to another fund. The purpose for issuing the 2023 Sewer Agenda Item #13.1.
Bond is to avoid internal loans by issuing a direct placement to a commercial bank or other direct lender. The 2023 Sewer Bond would be an obligation of the City’s Sewer Enterprise Fund with a pledge of net revenue of the City’s system on parity with the other obligations listed earlier. The item tonight seeks approval from the City Council to engage a team of professionals to move forward on identifying a direct lender through a competitive term sheet process, assemble all the required documentation and to bring the item back to the City Council on November 14th for review and possible approval.
Below are very conservative estimates of the proposed 2023 Sewer Bond:
Estimated Principal Amount $2,975,000
Estimated Project Fund $2,873,610
Estimated Fixed Costs of Issuance $100,000
Total Interest $2,299,250
Total Debt Service $5,274,250
Final Maturity FY 2044 (20yrs)
Interest Rate 5.000%
"All-In" TIC (*) 5.328%
(*) Includes $100,000 in estimated costs of issuance with the actual budget to be presented at the November 14th City Council meeting.
Proposed Financing Team
Municipal Advisor: Del Rio Advisors, LLC
Placement Agent: Brandis Tallman, a Division of Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.
Bond Counsel: Jones Hall
This is the same Financing Team that completed a refunding of bonds for the City’s Water Enterprise Fund in 2019 and worked on the interim financing for the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant that will be taken out by proceeds of a USDA loan upon completion of construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution - Wastewater Financing Transaction
Bond Presentation v. 2.0 (9-27-23)
Agenda Item #13.1.
CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF PROFESSIONALS FOR
WASTEWATER FINANCING TRANSACTION.
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the City of St. Helena (the “City”) owns and operates a system for the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater within the service area of the City (the “Wastewater System”); and
B. WHEREAS, the City desires to finance improvements to the City’s wastewater treatment facility and various other improvements to the Wastewater System (the “Project”); and; C. WHEREAS, in order to provide financing for the Project, the City desires City staff to assemble a team of financing professionals in order to move forward with financing for short-term financing of the Project.
.
RESOLUTION
The City Council of the City of St. Helena hereby resolves as follows:
Section 1. Financing Professionals. In connection with financing, the Council hereby approves, authorizes and ratifies the engagement of Brandis Tallman, a Division of Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. as placement agent to the City, and Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation as special counsel to the City, on such terms as the Administrative Services Director deems appropriate, provided payment of the fees of said firms shall be contingent on the successful closing of the financing and shall be paid from the proceeds thereof or other available funds of the City. Similarly, any other costs of issuance related to the financing, including fees payable to a private placement lender, shall be payable contingent on the successful closing of the financing from the proceeds thereof or other available funds of the City. The Council approves the engagement of Del Rio Advisors, LLC for the financing pursuant to its existing contract with the City.
Section 2. Official Actions. The Administrative Services Director is hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the City, to do any and all things and take any and all actions which she may deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate any of the actions contemplated by this resolution.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * * * * *
Agenda Item #13.1.
2 Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on October 10, 2023, by the following vote:
Mayor Dohring: ______________
Vice Mayor Hall: ______________
Councilmember Chouteau: ______________
Councilmember Hardy: ______________
Councilmember Summers: ______________
APPROVED:
________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #13.1.
Overview of Proposed Sewer Financing
City Council Briefing October 10, 2023
"Independent Registered Municipal Advisor"
Agenda Item #13.1.
1 Outline
• Existing Debt Obligations of the Sewer Enterprise Fund • Bond Issuance Process
• Type of Debt Obligation Proposed
• Financing Participants
• Cash Flow and Coverage Example
• Estimated Financing Summary
• Proposed Amortization
• Estimated Debt Service (“All Obligations)
• Estimated Debt Service Profile (“All Obligations”)
• Proposed Financing, Financing Team and Recommended Action • Questions and Discussion
Agenda Item #13.1.
2 Existing Debt Obligations of the Sewer Enterprise Fund California Statewide Communities Development Authority
Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds (Pooled Financing Program) Series 2005B
Principal Payments: October 1, 2023 to October 1, 2030
Remaining Amount: $940,000
Interest Rates: 4.30% to 4.375% (2023 to 2030)
Purpose: Funded $2,104,000 of Sewer System Improvements ____________________________________________________________________________________ California Statewide Communities Development Authority
Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds
Series 2012
Principal Payments: October 1, 2023 to October 1, 2032
Remaining Amount: $917,392
Interest Rates: 3.00% to 4.00% (2023 to 2032)
Purpose: Funded Approximately $1,555,435 of Sewer System Improvements ____________________________________________________________________________________ City of St. Helena
2022 Installment Sale Agreement
Principal Payment: April1, 2025
Remaining Amount: $9,362,000
Interest Rates: Variable (SOFR), Currently 4.798% (5.31% * 80% + 55bp) Purpose: Funded $9,362,000 of Sewer Plant Improvements (To Be Repaid from Proceeds of USDA Loan After Project Completion)
Agenda Item #13.1.
3 Bond Issuance Process
CAPITAL PROJECTS ONLY (NOT USED TO FUND OPERATIONS)
With a few exceptions, obligations can only be sold only to fund long-term capital projects. Funding operating expenses is not permitted.
PAY-AS-YOU-GO (PAYGO)
Raise rates and charges or other revenue to generate enough cash to fully pay for the proposed capital project. This can take years before you can begin to construct the facilities. The people paying may or may not realize the benefit of the facility.
DEBT FINANCING
Allows an issuer to securitize a future revenue stream to build the proposed capital project now vs. waiting. The users paying for the facility can get the benefit of the facility. Reserved for projects with a longer useful life. The term of the bonds are generally matched to the term of the useful life (30-year useful life to 30-year bonds).
Note: The term of the bonds can be anything shorter than the useful life and is determined solely by the ability to pay larger debt service payments. This can save interest costs over the life of the obligation but must be weighed against the competing cash needs of the fund or the funding of other competing capital projects.
MIX OF PAYGO AND DEBT FINANCING
Many issuers have a mix and match scenario where a portion of the project can be funded with cash and the balance financed with bonds. This makes a great deal of sense when investment returns are low on the idle cash. However, in higher interest rate environments, you might earn more interest than you are paying on an obligation.
When to Debt Finance
Agenda Item #13.1.
4 Bond Issuance Process (Continued)
DECISION TO PROCEED
When considering a debt offering, an issuer must consider their capital plans, financial goals, financing alternatives, existing debt structure, capital budget and future debt capacity.
PUBLIC OFFERING VS. DIRECT PLACEMENT
Public Offering: Bonds are sold during an order period to retail and institutional investors in the public market.
There are a number of factors that should be taken into account when making this decision, including, the type of financing structure, the credit quality and the market environment at the proposed time of sale. Generally public offerings are sold at lower interest rates but do have additional costs for disclosure counsel to prepare an official statement and rating fees. Can take 120 to150 days to complete the financing process start to finish. Direct Placement: When an obligation is sold to a single investor, usually a commercial bank or other institution that holds the obligation for their own account. While the interest rates are often higher for direct placements, this can be more than offset by lower costs of issuance since no official statement or rating is required.
Generally reserved for terms of 15 to 20 years or less. A term sheet is prepared and bid on by multiple banks and institutions. Can take 60 to 90 days to complete the financing process start to finish.
COMPETITIVE VS. NEGOTIATED SALE (PUBLIC OFFERING)
Once a decision is made to borrow from the capital markets in a public offering, the issuer has to determine whether to undertake a competitive or negotiated sale. There are a number of factors that should be taken into account when making this decision, including, the type of financing structure, the credit quality and the market environment at the proposed time of sale. In a competitive sale, underwriting firms bid on the bonds in a competitive process on a date and time certain with the entire issue awarded to the bidder with the lowest true interest cost (TIC).
Early Considerations for Bond Issuance
Agenda Item #13.1.
5 Type of Debt Obligation Proposed
Secured by the Net Revenue of the system (see “Cash Flow Example”) City covenants to raise rates and charges to maintain the Rate Covenant (1.20x minimum, etc.)
Additional Bond Test (“ABT”) identifies the conditions under which the City can issue additional obligations secured by the same wastewater Net Revenue Requires majority vote of the City Council
Multitude of structuring options (term up to 30 years, layer around existing debt, principal deferral, capitalized interest and rate stabilization fund) May or may not require a reserve fund
Ongoing Continuing Disclosure requirements
Wastewater Revenue Bonds (Loan Agreement or Installment Sale Agreement) Agenda Item #13.1.
6 Financing Participants
Detail of the Most Significant Players
FINANCING TEAM OTHER POSSIBLE PARTICIPANTS
Underwriter (Public Sale) Trustee / Paying Agent / Fiscal Agent Sells the bonds to retail buyers and institutions Makes debt service payments to bondholders Purchases the bonds in a competitive sale Manages bond proceeds Tracks bondholders
(*) Placement Agent (Direct Placement)
Sells the obligation to a direct placement lender Rating Agencies Standard & Poor’s
Legal Counsel Moody’s
(*) Bond Counsel (Counsel to Issuer) Fitch
Underwriters’ Counsel
Disclosure Counsel (Prepares the OS) Major Bond Insurance Companies BAM
(*) Municipal Advisor Assured Guaranty
Fiduciary Duty to the Issuer
Advises as to structure, timing and terms Letter of Credit Banks Domestic & Foreign Commercial Banks
(*) Pertinent to the 2023 Sewer Bond
Agenda Item #13.1.
7 Cash Flow and Coverage Example
Pro Forma Cash Flow and Debt Service Coverage ($000)
Line Item FY 2024 $
Revenue
Rates and Charges (1) $3,520
Charges for Services (Additional Rates) (1) $1,760
Other Revenue (1) $3
Interest Earnings (2) $13
Total Revenue $5,296
Less: O&M
Operations and Maintenance (1) $2,602
Personnel Services (1) $1,594
Total O&M $4,196
Net Revenue $1,100
Less: Parity Debt Service ($869)
Available for Capital / Other $231
Operating Reserve (EOY) $1,354
Reserve % of O&M 32.0%
Debt Service Coverage 1.27x
(1) From the Sewer Rate Study Dated April 20, 2023
(2) Assumes 1.00% Interest Earnings Rate on the Average Beginning and Ending Operating Reserve Fund and Rate Stabilization Fund Balance Agenda Item #13.1.
8 Estimated Financing Summary
Estimated Principal Amount $2,975,000
Estimated Project Fund $2,873,610
Estimated Fixed Costs of Issuance $100,000
Total Interest $2,299,250
Total Debt Service $5,274,250
Final Maturity FY 2043 (20yrs)
Interest Rate 5.000%
“All-In” TIC (*) 5.328%
(*) Includes $125,000 in estimated costs of issuance with the actual budget to be presented at the November 14 City Council meeting.
Agenda Item #13.1.
9 Estimated Amortization
Fiscal Year
Date Principal Rate Interest Debt Service
06/30/24
06/30/25 5.000 148,750.00 148,750.00
06/30/26 5.000 148,750.00 148,750.00
06/30/27 5.000 148,750.00 148,750.00
06/30/28 5.000 148,750.00 148,750.00
06/30/29 5.000 148,750.00 148,750.00
06/30/30 5.000 148,750.00 148,750.00
06/30/31 5.000 148,750.00 148,750.00
06/30/32 5.000 148,750.00 148,750.00
06/30/33 100,000 5.000 148,750.00 248,750.00
06/30/34 105,000 5.000 143,750.00 248,750.00
06/30/35 220,000 5.000 138,500.00 358,500.00
06/30/36 230,000 5.000 127,500.00 357,500.00
06/30/37 245,000 5.000 116,000.00 361,000.00
06/30/38 255,000 5.000 103,750.00 358,750.00
06/30/39 270,000 5.000 91,000.00 361,000.00
06/30/40 280,000 5.000 77,500.00 357,500.00
06/30/41 295,000 5.000 63,500.00 358,500.00
06/30/42 310,000 5.000 48,750.00 358,750.00
06/30/43 325,000 5.000 33,250.00 358,250.00
06/30/44 340,000 5.000 17,000.00 357,000.00
Totals 2,975,000 2,299,250.00 5,274,250.00
Agenda Item #13.1.
10 Estimated Debt Service (“All Obligations”)
Fiscal Fiscal Year
Year Series 2005B Series 2012 2022 Interim (1) Series 2023 Bonds (2) USDA Loan Debt Service 2018 141,045.00 112,859.17 - - - 253,904.17
2019 142,878.13 113,151.73 - - - 256,029.86
2020 139,531.25 113,358.35 - - - 252,889.60
2021 140,986.25 112,836.71 - - - 253,822.96
2022 142,098.75 113,293.37 - - - 255,392.12
2023 138,013.75 112,923.90 280,860.00 - - 531,797.65
2024 138,821.25 112,847.90 468,100.00 148,750.00 - 868,519.15 2025 139,413.75 112,608.85 - 148,750.00 472,480.00 873,252.60 2026 139,750.00 112,560.06 - 148,750.00 472,560.00 873,620.06 2027 139,828.13 111,663.44 - 148,750.00 472,480.00 872,721.56 2028 139,687.50 111,662.61 - 148,750.00 473,240.00 873,340.11 2029 139,328.13 111,912.80 - 148,750.00 472,800.00 872,790.93 2030 138,750.00 112,434.72 - 148,750.00 473,200.00 873,134.72 2031 137,953.13 111,717.46 - 148,750.00 473,400.00 871,820.59 2032 - 111,935.02 - 248,750.00 473,400.00 834,085.02
2033 - 111,978.66 - 248,750.00 473,200.00 833,928.66
2034 - - - 358,500.00 472,800.00 831,300.00
2035 - - - 357,500.00 473,200.00 830,700.00
2036 - - - 361,000.00 473,360.00 834,360.00
2037 - - - 358,750.00 473,280.00 832,030.00
2038 - - - 361,000.00 472,960.00 833,960.00
2039 - - - 357,500.00 473,400.00 830,900.00
2040 - - - 358,500.00 472,560.00 831,060.00
2041 - - - 358,750.00 472,480.00 831,230.00
2042 - - - 358,250.00 473,120.00 831,370.00
2043 - - - 357,000.00 473,440.00 830,440.00
2044 - - - - 473,440.00 473,440.00
2045 - - - - 473,120.00 473,120.00
2046 - - - - 473,480.00 473,480.00
2047 - - - - 472,480.00 472,480.00
2048 - - - - 473,160.00 473,160.00
2049 - - - - 473,440.00 473,440.00
2050 - - - - 473,320.00 473,320.00
2051 - - - - 472,800.00 472,800.00
2052 - - - - 472,880.00 472,880.00
2053 - - - - 472,520.00 472,520.00
2054 - - - - 472,720.00 472,720.00
2055 - - - - 473,440.00 473,440.00
2056 - - - - 472,640.00 472,640.00
2057 - - - - 473,360.00 473,360.00
2058 - - - - 472,520.00 472,520.00
2059 - - - - 473,160.00 473,160.00
2060 - - - - 473,200.00 473,200.00
2061 - - - - 472,640.00 472,640.00
2062 - - - - 472,480.00 472,480.00
2063 - - - - 472,680.00 472,680.00
2064 - - - - 473,200.00 473,200.00
Totals 1,958,085.00 1,799,744.75 748,960.00 5,274,250.00 18,920,040.00 28,701,079.75 Notes
(1) Assumes $9,362.000 * 2.00% in FY 2023 and $9,362,000 * 5.00% in FY 2024 (2) Assumed 20-year amortization at 5.00%
Agenda Item #13.1.
11 Estimated Debt Service Profile (“All Obligations”)
Agenda Item #13.1.
12 Proposed Financing, Financing Team and Recommended Action Proposed Financing
Approximately $2.975 million direct placement to a commercial bank or other direct lender Competitively bid to multiple direct placement lenders Proposed 20-year amortization, no reserve fund
Estimated costs of issuance of approximately $100,000 The interest rate might be higher than a public offering but the much lower costs of issuance and smaller size make the direct placement more attractive (requires no official statement, reserve fund or equivalent or rating)
Allows City to forego internal loans of the Traffic Impact Fee Fund ($873k) and the General Fund ($1 million)
Financing Team
Municipal Advisor: Del Rio Advisors, LLC
Placement Agent: Brandis Tallman, a Division of Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. Bond Counsel: Jones Hall
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council approve the resolution authorizing hiring of professionals for a wastewater financing transaction and directing staff and the City’s Financing Team to bring the item back to the City Council at the November 14th meeting for formal review and possible approval. Agenda Item #13.1. Page 806 of 807 13 Questions and Discussion
?
Agenda Item #13.1.