!"
#
$%&$'$(&)
*++,-
-.+/#'0"
'$12
345654789:;<=>:?@ABCDEFDGHIDCJKDCDLFJDMDCDNOEFEFMFEPFNQDNMFEPFMDMDRIDSFGHEFHOLFHGE TUIJIUHFVWCSIOJFMTUIJIUHFMDCSNODEUFMXYGNDCUSDILDEJFCMXGONJGGECDNOEFDEFDMDCJGNQFEMUKUIDE HDSUIUNUFMDCJOMFMHGERDMMUPFOMFV
34;8?@8Z8;=<8;=8?ABHDSUIUN[HGEKD\GEROYIUSDMMFKYI[FPFCNMMOSQDMSGCSFENMXDENHFMNUPDIMX YDC]OFNMDCJMRFSUDITUCFNDMNUCLMV^UCFE[FPFCNSFCNFEMDEFDCDSSFMMGE[OMFNGDIDELFTUCFE[V 34;8?@_5:?`8ABCDLEUSOINOEDIREGSFMMUCLHDSUIUN[OMFJHGETUCFREGJOSNUGCDCJNQFHFEKFCNUCLDCJ REGSFMMUCLGHLEDRF\OUSFUCNGTUCFXNQFEFHFEKFCNUCLGHMNUIITUCFUCNGMRDEaIUCLTUCFXDCJREGSFMMFM DCJREDSNUSFMOMFJUCNQFSEFDNUGCGHRGENMXMQFEEUFMXDCJNQFIUaFVWCSIOJFMKDCOHDSNOEUCLXRDSaDLUCLX SGKKFESUDIMSDIFMXDCJLEDRFMDKRIUCLHDSUIUNUFMbLEDRFMDKRIUCLbSEOMQUCLGHLEDRFMbHFEKFCNUCLDCJ REGSFMMUCLGHLEDRF\OUSFbDLFUCLDCJREGSFMMUCLGHTUCFbJUMNUIIDNUGCbYGNNIUCLGHTUCFbGCcMUNFJUMRGMDI GHTUCFE[TDMNFLFCFEDNFJGCDMUNFbDCJTDEFQGOMUCLDCJMQURRUCLGHTUCFREGJOSFJGCNQFREFKUMFMV dMFMDSSFMMGE[NGDTUCFE[XUCSIOJUCLGHHUSFMXIDYGEDNGEUFMXF]OURKFCNKDUCNFCDCSFMQGRMXFKRIG[FFMe FDNUCLHDSUIUNUFMXSGGRFEDLFEFRDUEMQGRMXTUCFMNGEDLFNDCaMXMSDIFMXDCJYGUIFEEGGKMXDEFDIIGTFJV 34;8?@_9f:55ABCDLEUSOINOEDIREGSFMMUCLHDSUIUN[OMFJHGETUCFREGJOSNUGCDCJNQFHFEKFCNUCLDCJ REGSFMMUCLGHLEDRF\OUSFUCNGTUCFXDCJNQFEFHFEKFCNUCLGHMNUIITUCFUCNGMRDEaIUCLTUCFVgKDII TUCFEUFMDEFDCDSSFMMGE[OMFNGDEFMUJFCNUDIOMFV
34;8?@Z494=h?<8;=8?ABJD[OMFDEFDUCSIOJUCLNGOEDCJNDMNUCLHDSUIUNUFMXEFNDUIMDIFMGHTUCFMDCJ TUCFcEFIDNFJUNFKMXSDNFEUCLMQGRMXSDHFMXEFMNDOEDCNMXJFIUSDNFMMFCMXDCJJEUCaUCLRIDSFMViOMNYF SGCJOSNFJTUNQUCMNEOSNOEFMMRFSUHUSDII[JFMULCDNFJHGEMOSQOMFMV^UCFE[PUMUNGESFCNFEMDEFDC DSSFMMGE[OMFNGDIDELFTUCFE[V
34;8j:?8kh>94;`VBYOUIJUCLOMFJHGENQFTQGIFMDIFMNGEDLFGEJUMNEUYONUGCGHTUCFDCJDIIUFJTUCF REGJOSNMHEGKDC[MGOESFV
Agenda Item #10.6.
!"#$% &'%$()*+"# #&$,-& &.-/#)
$%01
$#23
456789:;7<85=7>7?@
ABCDECFAF GHIJKLMNOPLIQRMSNJ
TUVWVXVYZU[\]^_VYV`a[YV\bcdbadcZ[^Wb^W\[_VYcZ[^W^e_[\ZcWbV\^YZUVWafgVY^ehicYj[Wk\icbV\h _lVdd[WkaW[Z\^Y^ZUVYc\iVbZ\^e_VXVd^ifVWZ^YZUViUm\[bcdVWX[Y^WfVWZVniYV\\V_[WWafVY[bcd `acWZ[Z[V\hcW_ZUVYV\adZ^ecbcdbadcZ[^Wb^WZc[W\ceYcbZ[^W^eclU^dVWafgVYhZUVYV\adZ\l[ddgV Y^aW_V_c\e^dd^l\o
pHNHLIqrSKNsMNOCtYcbZ[^W\^e^WVuUcdevwxyz^YkYVcZVY\UcddgVY^aW_V_aiZ^ZUVWVcYV\Z lU^dVWafgVYcW_eYcbZ[^W\^edV\\ZUcW^WVuUcdevwxyz\UcddgVY^aW_V__^lWZ^ZUVWVcYV\Z lU^dVWafgVYhVnbViZc\^ZUVYl[\ViY^X[_V_x
{|QH}RMSN~SLRIRH~~SLsIqHSKJMNOHNJMR
SNKJCUVbcdbadcZ[^W^eeYcbZ[^W\YVdcZV_
Z^iVYf[ZZV_g^Wa\_VW\[ZmaW[Z\e^YiY^VbZ\Vd[k[gdVe^Yg^Wa\_VW\[ZmiaY\acWZZ^]cd[e^YW[c ^XVYWfVWZ]^_Vyy^YcWm\abbV\\^Y\ZcZaZVhcW_]UciZVYxhVW\[Zm^Wa\hcWm eYcbZ[^WcdWafgVY^eaW[Z\\UcddgVY^aW_V_aiZ^ZUVWVnZlU^dVWafgVYx ABCDECFF GHIJKLMNOMJRINQHJ
GHIJKLHHNRJILHSLRHJRMJRINQHCTUVWfVc\aY[WkcYV`a[YV__[\ZcWbVh\abUc\ZUV f[W[faf_[\ZcWbVgVZlVVWc\ZYabZaYVcW_cd^Zd[WVhZUVfVc\aYVfVWZ[\fc_VcZZUVbd^\V\Z ^Y\U^YZV\Z_[\ZcWbVgVZlVVWZUVZl^^gVbZ\x
MJRINQHJILHGHIJKLHsSLMSNRIqqCTUVW_VZVYf[W[Wk_[\ZcWbV\e^Y\VZgcbj\cW_ \ZYabZaYV_[fVW\[^W\hcdd_[\ZcWbV\cYVfVc\aYV_cd^WkcU^Y[^WZcdidcWVeY^fZUV ciiY^iY[cZVd[WVhV_kV^ega[d_[Wkh\ZYabZaYVh\Z^YckVcYVchicYj[WkcYVch^Y^ZUVY^gVbZxUV\V _[\ZcWbV\cYVW^ZfVc\aYV_gme^dd^l[WkZUVZ^i^kYciUm^Y\d^iV^eZUVdcW_x GHIJKLHHNRJNSqMNOIRLKQRKLHCVc\aYVfVWZ\[WX^dX[Wkc\ZYabZaYVcYVfc_VZ^ZUV bd^\V\Z\aii^YZVdVfVWZ^eZUV\ZYabZaYVxZYabZaYV\^Yi^YZ[^W\^e\ZYabZaYV\ZUcZcYVVWZ[YVdm aW_VYkY^aW_cYVW^Z[Wbda_V_[WfVc\aY[WkYV`a[YV__[\ZcWbV\x
GHIJKLHHNRS~HMQqHRIQMNOSLLIHqLHIJVc\aYVfVWZ^ecf[W[fafZYcXVd _[\ZcWbVe^YXVU[bdV\h\abUc\kcYckVVWZYcWbV\VZgcbj\cW_\Zcbj[WkdcWV_[\ZcWbV\hcYV fVc\aYV__^lWZUVbVWZVY^eZUVXVU[bdVZYcXVdcYVcxt^YVncfidVhbaYX[Wk_Y[XVlcm\cW_ ZYcXVddcWV\cYVfVc\aYV_cd^WkZUVbVWZVYcYb^eZUV_Y[XVlcm^YZYcee[bdcWVx GHIJKLMNOrIsMKJCTUVWc\iVb[e[V_dcW_a\V[\YV`a[YV_Z^gVd^bcZV_cf[W[faf_[\ZcWbV eY^fcW^ZUVYdcW_a\VhZUVf[W[faf_[\ZcWbV[\fVc\aYV_[Wc\ZYc[kUZd[WVeY^fcddi^[WZ\ cd^WkZUVd^Zd[WV^eZUV\agVbZiY^VbZh[Wcdd_[YVbZ[^W\x
Agenda Item #10.6.
!"
#
$%&$'$(&)
*++,
-
.+/#'0"
'$12
3456789:;<=;>?>@A8BC674D5E4CFBDG8C
9:;<=;><> A8BC674D5H845IF
JB7BK8FL73MBFNLLO;PQRSTUVWUXYZ[U\]^_^R^_`\QaaV^\RQQabSTUVWUXY]`UY]\UZc`^ZTR`W aRQc\]`^d`R^Y`V`d`VQa\]`]UY]`Z\^XWVQ[`Z\_QUX\Z[]`R`\]`d`R\Ue^V_V^X`Qa\]``f\`RUQR [^VVZ\QTe]`fUZ\UXYQRaUXUZ]`WYR^W`b[]Ue]`d`RUZVQ[`Rb\Q\]`]UY]`Z\_QUX\QX\]`RQQab\]` \Q_Qa\]`_^R^_`\[^VVb\]`[^VVeQ_UXYQa^aV^\RQQabQR\]`W`egVUX`Qa^c^XZ^RWRQQah iMLK8jNLLO;PQRSTUVWUXYZ[U\]^]U__`WbY^SV`WbY^cSR`VbQRQ\]`RZVQ_`WRQQaW`ZUYXb STUVWUXY]`UY]\UZc`^ZTR`WaRQc\]`^d`R^Y`V`d`VQa\]`]UY]`Z\^XWVQ[`Z\_QUX\Z[]`R`\]` d`R\Ue^V_V^X`Qa\]``f\`RUQR[^VVZ\QTe]`fUZ\UXYQRaUXUZ]`WYR^W`b[]Ue]`d`RUZVQ[`Rb\Q\]` ]UY]`Z\_QUX\QX\]`]UY]`Z\_QUX\QX\]`]UY]`Z\RUWY`h
Agenda Item #10.6.
!"#$% &'%$()*+"# #&$,-& &.-/#)
$%01
$#2
3456789:;<=;><>;?@A8BC674D5E64FG4D5H845IJ
KJL748C;MNOPQRSTUNVWXPNSOYPTZ[RWZTUPRUNQYSU\]UNV^WXP[Z\\Z_UNVTS\PRRXQ\\Q``\ab cdeNUNWPTUZTYQ\fZNaZT\Z[WRXQ\\YPfZSNWP]QRQ[S\\RWZTaU[UWR[\ZZTQTPQPgfPP]RZNPh XQ\[Z[WXPWZWQ\QTPQZ[WXPNPQTPRW[S\\[\ZZT]UTPfW\aYP\Z_UWZTU[UWURPNf\ZRP]ZN OZTPWXQNW_ZRU]PRd
ideYQRPOPNWRXQ\\YPfZSNWP]QRQ[S\\RWZTaU[WXPjPTWUfQ\]URWQNfPYPW_PPN[UNURXP] VTQ]PQN]WXP[UNURXP]RST[QfPZ[WXP[\ZZTQYZjPWXPYQRPOPNWUROZTPWXQN[ZST[PPW QWQNa`ZUNWd
kdeRWZTaRXQ\\NZWPgfPP]il[PPWUNXPUVXW[TZOWXPS``PTRST[QfPZ[WXP[\ZZTWZWXP fPU\UNVQYZjPd
mdeNQWWUfURNZWfZNRU]PTP]QRWZTa`TZjU]P]UWURSNfZN]UWUZNP]^SN[UNURXP]^QN]\PRR WXQNRPjPN[PPWQWUWRXUVXPRW`ZUNW_UWXQNQjPTQVPXPUVXWNZWPgfPP]UNV[ZST[PPWd
Agenda Item #10.6.
!
"
#$%#&#'%(
)**+,-,.*/"&0!

3456789:;<=;><>;?@A8BC674D5?64EF4D5GHI748C
38DJ8CBDFKBEECLMNONOPQNRSTTOUVOWXYZ[[WXZU\SRNO][ZU\WVZ^OWR]_VR_]OWWNZ[[`O aOZW_]O\ZWRNObO]RPVZ[\PWRZUVOT]SaRNOaP\^SPUR`ORYOOURNONPQNOWRZU\[SYOWRUZR_]Z[ Q]Z\OPaaO\PZRO[cZ\dZVOURRS`SRNWP\OWSTRNOTOUVOS]YZ[[RSRNONPQNOWR^SPURSTRNOTOUVO S]YZ[[e
3456789:;<=;><>;f@A8BC674D5g845hHIi38DJ8CI7KBEEC
j8JkCLlOVmNOPQNRPW\ORO]aPUO\`caOZW_]PUQT]SaRNOQ]S_U\RSRNORS^STRNOT[SS]STRNO \OVm\P]OVR[cZ`SbORNOQ]S_U\`O[SYe
3456789:;<=;><>;j@A8BC674D5Hh8g845hHIij8JkC
Agenda Item #10.6.
!"#$% &'%$()*+"# #&$,-& &.-/#)
$%01
$#23
45675589:;<=<=>?<@ABCD@=DDCEE<CFFG=H=CEIJ=KCEK=ELJ>G=K>DM=L@>ADNOPQQPQORS T>J=F=EE;=F=LAHHID>LC@>ADUCL>F>@>=EP
VW:XY:ZYZ [789\]^5_`a69
`a6b^c6d:eA@f>K@<>E@<=<AJ>gAD@CFK>E@CDL=G=@f==D@<=E>K=FA@F>D=ESH=CEIJ=KC@J>?<@ CD?F=E@A@<=FA@K=h@<C@ChA>D@H>KfCiG=@f==D@<=BJAD@CDKJ=CJFA@F>D=EP `a6j7k6d:eA@K=h@<>EH=CEIJ=KCFAD?CE@JC>?<@F>D=KJCfDBJAH@<=H>KhA>D@AB@<=BJAD@ hJAh=J@iF>D=AB@<=FA@@A@<=H>KhA>D@AB@<=J=CJhJAh=J@iF>D=AJ@A@<=HAE@K>E@CD@hA>D@ ADCDiA@<=JFA@F>D=f<=J=@<=J=>EDAJ=CJFA@F>D=P
l^_\]7VW:XY:ZYZm[789\]^5_`a6b^c6d85cj7k6d
4n7]8_7opak7:;<=Cq=JC?=EFAh=ABChCJL=F>ELCFLIFC@=KIE>D?@<=BAFFAf>D?BAJHIFCr MsNRRtuvtevwxSf<=J=r
NPMsxq=JC?=EFAh=t>Dh=JL=D@v
QPusyAD@AIJ>D@=JqCFt>DB==@v
zPes;A@CFF=D?@<ABCFFLAD@AIJF>D=EAD@<=hCJL=Ft>DB==@v
{PxsxJ=CABEIG|=L@hCJL=Ft>DE}ICJ=B==@v
VW:XY:Z~Z [789\]^5_lpaa]4]7885clpaa]4]7886^a
4]789^5p\c7c^5paa]8]78789\]7756:;<=BFAAJCJ=C>EH=CEIJ=KCE@<=EIHAB@<= ?JAEE<AJ>gAD@CFBFAAJCJ=CEABCGI>FK>D?H=CEIJ=KBJAH@<==@=J>AJBCL=AB=@=J>AJfCFFESAJ BJAH@<=L=D@=JF>D=ABCfCFFE=hCJC@>D?@fAGI>FK>D?EPxJ=CE>DLFIK=KCDK=LFIK=KBJAHBFAAJ CJ=CCJ=F>E@=KG=FAfP
Agenda Item #10.6.
!"
#
$%&$'$(&)
*++,-.-/+0#'1"
'$23
456789:;<;=7>9??@A@<BCB98:9BD=?7E
F5GHHIFJKLFJHMNOFPMQFNRMSKTMRKTLIMUVKHRKTWXYRMZLIFLKNJMHY[LIM\YYSFTR [KLIKTLIMYVLM\NV\SFPMYSLIM]FKT[FHHNYSO\KTPKOFHY\FPPMNNY\^JVKHRKTWN Y\LIMPMTLM\HKTMNYSOF\L^[FHHNNMOF\FLKTWNVPIJVKHRKTWNY\OY\LKYTNLIM\MYS5 J5_TPFNMN[IM\MTY[FHHNM`KNLaLIMF\MFPYbM\MRJ^LIM\YYSM`PHVRKTWL[YSMML YTMFPINKRMYSLIMNL\VPLV\MSY\FNLFTRF\R\YYSO\YcMPLKYT5 P5_TLM\KY\[FHd[F^NY\PY\\KRY\NaKTLM\KY\PYV\L^F\RNa[FHd[F^NaOFNMYNaY\ PY\\KRY\NPYbM\MRJ^F\YYSY\Nd^HKWIL5
R5GHHSHYY\NYSMTPHYNMRNLFK\[F^NaNLFK\[MHHNY\MHMbFLY\NIFSLN5 e5fg89:;<;h@?i>9??@A@<BE
F5 jMPIFTKPFHaMHMPL\KPFHaFTRPY]]VTKPFLKYTMkVKO]MTL\YY]NLIFLRYTYL M`PMMRL[YOM\PMTLYSLIMJVKHRKTWlNW\YNNSHYY\F\MF5 J5UF^[KTRY[NY\YLIM\F\PIKLMPLV\FHO\YcMPLKYTN[IM\MLIMbM\LKPFHRKNLFTPM JML[MMTLIMHY[MNLNV\SFPMYSLIMO\YcMPLKYTFTRLIMSKTKNIMRSHYY\KNmnKTPIMN Y\W\MFLM\5
P5GT^F\MFNLIFLNFLKNS^LIMHFTRNPFOMFTRYOMTNOFPMJFNMoYTM\MkVK\M]MTLN5 R5_TLIMPFNMYSF]VHLKpNLY\^JVKHRKTWLIFLIFNPYbM\MRY\MTPHYNMRNLFK\[F^Na NLFK\[MHHNY\MHMbFLY\NIFSLNaLIMIY\KoYTLFHF\MFYSNVPISMFLV\MNNIFHHJM PYVTLMRYTH^YTPMFLLIMSHYY\HMbMHYSLIMK\W\MFLMNLF\MFYSIY\KoYTLFHM`LMTL5 M5_TTYTp\MNKRMTLKFHJVKHRKTWNaF\MFNVNMRSY\YSSpNL\MMLOF\dKTWNOFPMNY\HYFRKTW NOFPMNaR\KbM[F^NaFTR]FTMVbM\KTWFKNHMNLIFLF\MHYPFLMRJMHY[LIMSKTKNI W\FRMYSLIMO\YOM\L^5
S5G\PFRMNaOY\LKPYMNaFTRNK]KHF\YOMTF\MFNLIFLF\MHYPFLMRFLY\TMF\NL\MML HMbMHFTRF\MFPPMNNKJHMLYLIMWMTM\FHOVJHKPJVLF\MTYLRMNKWTMRY\VNMRFN NFHMNaRKNOHF^aNLY\FWMaNM\bKPMaY\O\YRVPLKYTF\MFN5 W5 qVLNKRMF\MFNVNMRSY\NFHMNFTRrY\RKNOHF^QM5W5aOHFTLTV\NM\KMNaJVKHRKTW ]FLM\KFHNaFVLYNFHMNa[KTMO\YRVPLKYTaMLP5Z5
I5GJVKHRKTWY\NL\VPLV\MPYTNKNLKTWYSTYTVNFJHMSHYY\NOFPMNVPIFNFWF\FWMa PF\OY\LaY\NLY\FWMNIMR5
K5sTSKTKNIMRFLLKPNaP\F[HNOFPMNaFTRJFNM]MTLNNIFHHTYLJMKTPHVRMRVTHMNN PYTbM\LMRFTRSKTKNIMRFNVNFJHMSHYY\NOFPM5
Agenda Item #10.6.
!"#$% &'%$()*+"# #&$,-& &.-/#)
$%01
$#23
456789:;<=><?@?AB9CD785E64FGG8H89C
4FGG8H89CICJ5GK4HIL<MNOPQRRSTSOTSTUVRWXYZ[V\UNOSTUVRRPUNOPQRRSTSOT]O^_Q`aVbcUNO TSOT\aO\_SVdOadOQRe]RPTQQfSVgTShTbaT__O\\RShd`VQaVbc\RbT\VUOURUNO\VUOTSOTiMR _TQ_`QTUOUNOXYZ]PQRRSTSOTV\aVjVaOadh\VUOTSOT]TbaUhfV_TQQhO^fSO\\OaT\TaO_VgTQiXRS O^TgfQO]VPUNOPQRRSTSOTRPTQQd`VQaVbc\RbT\VUOURUTQ\kl]lll\m`TSOPOOU]TbaUNO\VUOTSOT V\nl]lll\m`TSOPOOU]UNOXYZV\O^fSO\\OaT\kiliMNOPRQQReVbcTSOO^_Q`aOaPSRgXQRRSYSOT Vb_oTQ_`QTUVbcXYZi
nipqrstutvwqrxtsyz{XQRRSTSOTQR_TUOadOQRePVbV\NOacSTaOi
ki|yt}~qu{TSVbcTSOT\QR_TUOadOQRePVbV\NOacSTaORSPVbV\NOaPQRRSRPNTdVUTdQO \fT_OeNOSOUNOjOSUV_TQaV\UTb_OdOUeOObPVbV\NOacSTaOTbaPVbV\NOaPQRRSV\QO\\ UNTb\V^POOUi
i yx
szzvttw
wtsz{Y__O\\RSh\US`_U`SO\`fURnklcSR\\\m`TSOPOOUi
iipqsq
vzsr|vt
sz{RS_NO\eNOSOTUQOT\URbORPUNOQRbcO\UaVgOb\VRb\V\
`bOb_QR\Oai
:;<=><?? B9CD785E6GJG98C69
RU_RjOSTcOV\UNOSTUVRRPUNOURUTQPRRUfSVbUTSOTRPTQQ\US`_U`SO\RbTQRUURUNObOUQRUTSOT]UhfV_TQQh O^fSO\\OaT\TfOS_ObUTcOiMNOPRRUfSVbU\RPTQQfSVb_VfTQTbaT__O\\RSh\US`_U`SO\]Vb_Q`aVbc]d`UbRU QVgVUOaUR]cTSTcO\]_TSfRSU\]_RjOSOafTUVR\]TbaSRRPOafRS_NO\]\NTQQdO\`ggOaVbRSaOSUR _TQ_`QTUOQRU_RjOSTcOiMNOPRQQReVbc\US`_U`SO\\NTQQdOO^_Q`aOaPSRgUNO_TQ_`QTUVRb bOb_QR\OaTba`bSRRPOaaO_\]`b_RjOSOafTUVR\QTd\]`bSRRPOafRS_NO\]QTbaVbc\] dTQ_RbVO\Tba\UTVSeTh\eVUNTbOQOjTUVRbRPQO\\UNTbnVb_NO\TdRjOPVbV\NOacSTaO TjO\TbaSRRPRjOSNTbc\fSRO_UVbc`fURUNSOOPOOUPSRgTeTQQ
Agenda Item #10.6.
!"
#
$%&$'$(&)
*++,-.-/+0#'1"
'$23
456778969:;65<=7>9:>?@98A87>59B5CDBC569BE>BE>F65==G9BE>B>56>B76>9BHI;65D6?B=;6?B= BE69JKBE5=C<EL8BEC?8G=5A7K@89B58MCB6@=;6?8?<9N
OL8AA8?<;==79>?@E=BBCM9BE>B>56?=B6?D7=96@8?5==G6@9B5CDBC569=5@6DJ9N>?@ P?69A>77:?=?QE>M8B>M76>DD699=5K9B5CDBC56C?@65RSI9TC>56G66BUV=56BE>?=?69A>77 ?=?QE>M8B>M76>DD699=5K9B5CDBC569E>77M68?D7C@6@8?7=BD=F65><6U WXYZ[\]^_`a_bcbde\f\[gXhXhYijfkjl\[mY\
]^_`a_b^be\f\[gXhXhYijfW[jhfmY\
kj[h\[ijf_4E6G5=?B=G>7=B8968BE65=GBE6BL=78?69>@n>D6?BB=BE69B566B9>9;7>BB6@: 9CM@8F8@6@:=57>8@=CB:6oD6;BBE>BBE6G5=?B7=B78?69E>77M6BE>B78?6LE8DE89=MF8=C97KBE6 G5=?BMK56>9=?=GBE6;56F>878?<DC9B=A=GBE6=BE65MC87@8?<9=?BE6M7=DJUpG9CDEG5=?B89 ?=B6F8@6?B:BE6?>9@6B65A8?6@MKBE6q=AAC?8BKr6F67=;A6?Br856DB=5:68BE65A>KM6 D=?98@656@BE6G5=?B=GBE67=B:MCB?=BM=BEU
st[jZYtijf_4E6G5=?B=G>BE5=C<E7=B>MCB9BE69B566BBE>B?68<EM=58?<7=B9C96B=;5=F8@6 ;58A>5K>DD699U
]^_`a_bub v\mwZ[XhYx\fymz{w
|96BM>DJ78?6@6G8?8?<>56TC856@96BM>DJ89;>5>7767B=>?@>BBE69;6D8G86@@89B>?D6G5=ABE6 D=5569;=?@8?<G5=?B:98@6:=556>5;5=;65BK78?6:>99E=L?8?}8<C56R~UUIIU|r6B65A8?8?<O6BM>DJ9 p?B658=5=B>?@}8<C56R~UUIIU
r6B65A8?8?<O6BM>DJ9q=5?65=BU6TC856@96BM>DJ99E>77M6 C?=M9B5CDB6@G5=ABE6<5=C?@B=BE69JK6oD6;BLE656>77=L6@;C59C>?BB=BE8948B76:9CMn6DBB= D=A;78>?D6L8BEBE6
C87@8?<q=@6U|7756TC856@96BM>DJ99E>77M6@6B65A8?6@MKBE685567>B8=?9E8;B= BE6G5=?B=G>7=BU
Agenda Item #10.6.
!"#$% &'%$()*+"# #&$,-& &.-/#)
$%01
$#23
456789:;<=><?@?<ABC9D98E5F5F6G9DHIJKLMNFD985O8POD
456789:;<=><?@?<QBC9D98E5F5F6G9DHIJKLMRO8F98POD
STUVWXXWYZ[\]^U_Z`XaU\bX`cZW[]VWadUcUaeZ[Z[\aUfbZaUd]Ucg`_h]`^^XiYTU[`XWc`gbc]`^aW^W]Ud ]caUUcWa`XXUij
G9DHIJKAH7DD5F6klIFF9mGD899DnopIFL5OFL<qV`^aW^Uaci`gbc]`[UrZ]cZ[\Wa^aW^W]Ud ]caUUcVWaYTZ_TcTUUrZ]cZ[\aZ\TcsWVsY`iZ][`aaWYUacT`[cTUaZ\TcsWVsY`ibXcZe`cUXiaUfbZaUd VWacTU]caUUctcTUaUfbZaUd]Ucg`_h]T`XXgUU]c`gXZ]TUdVaWecTUVbcbaUaZ\TcsWVsY`ia`cTUa cT`[cTU^aW^UaciXZ[Uj
Agenda Item #10.6.
!"
#
$%&$'$(&)
*++,-
-.+/#'0"
'$12
3456789:76;55<=>?@@4A:B
CDEFGHIJKLMNLIOKGPQNHGOGLLKRSNTKRGUJHTGLLPKVMOHIJKUKJGOIONKUIMUHIJKRGUJUGNTKU NTGOGVMUOKUHIJKRGUJD
WDEOVMXYQNIOZNTKXIOIXQXHKNPGV[FMUGORLMN\TKUKHQVTHKNPGV[GPQNHGOGLLKRSOM YGUNMFNTK\IJNTMFNTKGLLKRXGRPKVMOHIJKUKJGHYGUNMFNTKUK]QIUKJHKNPGV[D ^@7>@_5:B
CD`TKYGOTGOJLKYMUNIMOMFNTKLMNHTGLLPKKaVLQJKJ\TKOJKNKUXIOIOZNTKUK]QIUKJ HKNPGV[HGOJRGUJHD
WD`TKbLGOOIOZcMXXIHHIMOXGR\GIdKNTKXIOIXQXHKNPGV[UK]QIUKXKONHMFKaIHNIOZ QOINHGFNKUUKdIK\MFNTKLMVGNIMOMFNTKYUMYMHKJYGOTGOJLKSNTK\IJNTMFNTK LGOJHVGYKGUKGGOJNTKLMVGNIMOMFPQILJIOZHIONTKdIVIOINRD ef84g5<_=:BEOQOQHQGLVGHKHSNTKcMXXQOINRhKdKLMYXKONhIUKVNMUHTGLLTGdKNTKGQNTMUINR NMKHNGPLIHTNTKLMVGNIMOMFNTKHKNPGV[GOJRGUJHNGOJGUJHIOUKLGNIMONMGORKaIHNIOZMU YUMYMHKJPQILJIOZHMUHNUQVNQUKHD
ijBklBmnm o47:;p<=>3<>=:
`TKVGLVQLGNIMOMFXKGHQUKXKONHUKLGNKJNMHIZOHGUKJKHVUIPKJIOcTGYNKUCqDWqSrIZOHD Agenda Item #10.6.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 A B C D E F G
City of St. Helena - Zoning Code Update
Public Hearing Draft - August 2023
ERRATA and TYPOGRAPHIC ERRORS October 5, 2023
Date of
Comment
Name of
commenter
Section/Subsection
Name
Description of Needed Edit
Notes/Proposed Edit to the Code Date edit made in
final document
Zoning Map
081523 Staff/J. Ponte Update the Open Space designation along Sulphur Creek near Valley View Street
LWC has a photograph showing the
revision to update the Zoning Map.
General/Miscellaneous Edits
081523
Planning
Commission
-- Add Section numbers to the headers on each page
to ease navigation in the Code
081523 Staff/LWC
All Development
Standards tables
To minimize confusion when more than one
standard is provided in a cell, separate the
following standards onto different lines within the
cell so that they are easier to read
Example: Min. Lot Area for the MR
Zone:
6,000 sq ft;
3,000 sq ft for new small lot
development
091423 Staff
Table 17.15.020 Thicken the row lines to differentiate between classes of zones, i.e. residential zones, commercial
and mixed use zones, etc.
Part I - General Provisions
081423 J. Ponte - email
Section 17.01.010.A Add "Title" to the list of names representing the zoning ordinance.
A. Title 17 of the City of St. Helena
Municipal Code shall be known and
cited as the “Zoning Code” or “Code” or
this "Title".
Part II - Administration and Procedures
091423 J. Ponte - email
Section
17.03.020.D.4
Clarify the first sentence to note the Planning
Commission recommends rules to the City Council.
4. The Planning Commission shall
recommend rules to the City Council
necessary for the conduct of its affairs in
keeping with the provisions of this Title.
081423 J. Ponte - email
Sections
17.04.160.A and B
Move last sentence from subsection A to
subsection B.
A. Denial with Leave to Amend. If an
application for a permit or other
discretionary approval is denied with
leave to amend, an application for the
same or a substantially similar project
may be filed within one year from the
date of the denial without being
considered a new application. A denial
without leave to amend must be
accompanied by a statement that no
right or privilege of the applicant is
waived or lost by the denial if an
amended application is resubmitted
within one year from the denial.
B. Denial without Leave to Amend. If an
application for a permit or other
discretionary approval is denied without
leave to amend, in compliance with
subsection A, no new application for the
same or a substantially similar project
may be filed for a period of one year
from the date of the denial. A denial
without leave to amend must be
accompanied by a statement that no
right or privilege of the applicant is
waived or lost by the denial if an
amended application is resubmitted
within one year from the denial.
Agenda Item #10.6.
5 6
A B C D E F G
Date of
Comment
Name of
commenter
Section/Subsection
Name
Description of Needed Edit
Notes/Proposed Edit to the Code Date edit made in
final document
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 091423 J. Ponte - email
Section
17.05.040.H.3
Add "or a subsequent similar entity" to the first
sentence.
3. The applicant shall donate to the St.
Helena Historical Society or a
subsequent similar entity any artifact or
architectural element identified …
081423 J. Ponte - email
Section
17.05.100.H.4
Since ‘Code’ just means the Zoning Code any
violation outside of the Zoning Code would have no
impact. Refer to the Municipal Code.
4. If the permit holder has a current
business license, has rented their
property on a short-term basis for an
average of 60 days per year (as
applicable), has been properly reporting
and paying TOT, and has fewer than
three confirmed violations of the
Municipal Code or of state or federal
law over the prior two years, the
Community Development Director may
administratively approve the renewal
which shall be valid for an additional
two years.
081423 J. Ponte - email
Section 17.09.070.A Add "Historic signs are exempt" like in paragraph B. A. Continuance of Legally Nonconforming Sign or Billboard. A
legally nonconforming sign or billboard
may be continued for up to five years
after the Effective Date or seven years
from date of erection, whichever is
shorter. Historic signs are exempt.
Part III - District Regulations
081423 C. Kresk - email
Table 17.16.030.B
End Note 4
Insert a new line to start End Note #4 (Text
unchanged)
Ensure there is a space/hard return
between End Note #3 and End Note #4.
081423 LWC
Table 17.16.030.B
End Note
Delete the unnecessary word "less" in sub-note ii. ii. Non-habitable accessory buildings less with a max. floor area of 120 sf.
081523 D. Hale
Table 17.16.030.C Change table title from "Primary Building Footprint Standards" to "Primary Building Gross Floor Area".
Table 17.16.030.C: Primary Building
Footprint StandardsGross Floor Area
Standards in the LR-1A and LR Zoning
Districts
081523 C. Kresk - email
Table 17.17.020.A Ensure there is a space/hard return between End Note #5 and End Note #6.
A. Ensure there is a space/hard return
between End Note #5 and End Note #6.
082923 City staff/LWC
Table 17.17.030.B Floor Area per Use: Delete the minimum required floor area standard per use in the CB and SC zones
B. Delete "Min 200 sq ft" in the CB and
SC zones
081821 LWC
Table 17.19.030.B Change the heading of the second column referring to A-20 lots "≥" to ">".
Change to A-20 lots > ≥ 5 acres
Agenda Item #10.6.
5 6
A B C D E F G
Date of
Comment
Name of
commenter
Section/Subsection
Name
Description of Needed Edit
Notes/Proposed Edit to the Code Date edit made in
final document
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 0100223 City staff
Section 17.22.030.D Accessory Dwelling Units: D.2.a.i. Amend this subsection so that potentially more ADUs do not
have to incur the cost of installing a separate utility connection.
D.2.a. Converted on single-family lot :
Only one ADU or JADU on a lot with a
proposed or existing single-family
dwelling on it, where the ADU or JADU:
i. Is either: within the space of a
proposed single-family dwelling; within
the existing space of an existing singlefamily dwelling; or (in the case of an ADU only) within the existing space
of an accessory structure, plus up to 150
additional square feet if the expansion is
limited to accommodating ingress and
egress. For purposes of this subsection,
“within the existing space” includes a
structure that is constructed in the same
location and to the same dimensions.
093023 City staff
Section 17.22.080.C Bed and Breakfast Inns: Change Minor Use Permit to Conditional Use Permit.
C. Findings Required. In approving a
Minor Conditional Use Permit for a bed
and breakfast inn, the Planning
Commission shall ...
082823 LWC
Section 17.22.230.B Small Wineries: Applicability. Move the Section B.
Applicability to the top of the next page.
Move Section B. Applicability to the top
of the next page. Check all.
Part IV - Citywide Standards
081523 J. Ponte - oral
Section
17.25.010.C.7
Insert the word "water" after "fresh". 7. Encouraging the conservation of limited fresh water resources through
the use of site-specific plants and
various planting and maintenance
techniques.
091423 J. Ponte - email
Section 17.25.040.D Clarify landscaping requirements for driveways to flag lots.
D. Landscaping Requirements on Flag
Lots. Landscaping is required in the
panhandle portion of all flag lots (i.e. an
easement or if owned) alongside the
driveway.
081423 J. Ponte - email
Section
17.26.060.C.4
Add period at the end of the sentence. C.4. In the case of a shared parking facility that serves more than one
property, a parking agreement has been
prepared consistent with the provisions
of Section 17.26.070.B.
081423 C. Kresk - email
Section
17.30.020.A.8.d
Correct "are galleries" to "art galleries." d. Public library, areart galleries, museums, or other nonrecreational
public facilities;
Part V - Definitions and Rules of Measurement
091423 City staff and LWC
Chapter 17.32 Gross floor area definition: Add that basements are excluded.
Gross floor area. The total horizontal
area in square feet of each floor within
the enclosed exterior walls of all
buildings on a parcel, as measured at
the exterior face of the enclosing walls,
and excluding basements.
100323 LWC Chapter 17.32 Correct the caption of Figure 17.32.E to reflect this is for the visibility triangle, not setbacks.
Figure 17.32.E: Setbacks Visibility
Triangle
081523 C. Warner - email
Chapter 17.33 Formula restaurant definition: Replace " … which cause them to be substantially identical to 10 or
more …" with clearer text.
… which cause them such architecture
and signs to be substantially identical to
10 or more …"
Agenda Item #10.6.
5 6
A B C D E F G
Date of
Comment
Name of
commenter
Section/Subsection
Name
Description of Needed Edit
Notes/Proposed Edit to the Code Date edit made in
final document
48 49
081423 J. Ponte - email
Section 17.34.030 Change "of" to "or." Parapet or Flat Roof. For buildings with a parapet ofor flat roof, building height
is measured from the average level of
the highest and lowest points where the
vertical plane of the exterior walls touch
existing or finished grade, whichever is
lower, to the highest point on the roof,
the top of the parapet wall, the wall
coping of a flat roof, or the deck line of a
mansard roof.
9/5/2023 M. DeRosa
Section 17.22.030 D.2.a.1 Eliminate text "if the expansion is limited to accomodating ingress and egress" so it adds
flexibility that more ADUs do not have to be
subject to the cost of building a separate utility
connection.
1. ADU only) within the existing space of
an accessory structure, plus up to one
hundred fifty (150) additional square
feet if the expansion is limited to
accommodating ingress and egress. For
purposes of this subsection, “within the
existing space” includes a structure that
is constructed in the same location and
to the same dimensions.
Agenda Item #10.6.
City of St. Helena - Zoning Code Update
Public Hearing Draft - August 2023
PLANNING COMMISSION SUBSTANTIVE EDITS October 5, 2023
Date of
Comment
Name of
commenter
Section/Subsection
Name
Description of edit Notes/Proposed Edit to the Code Date edit made in final document
Part III - District Regulations
081423 K. Austin - email
Table 17.16.030.B Lot coverage: MR zone for small lot development; Add new standard for lot coverage for new small
lot development Max. 55%
Lot widths ≤45 ft: max. 35%
Lot widths >45 ft: max 40%
55% for new small lot development
081423 K. Austin - email
Table 17.16.030.B Min. Interior Side Setback, upper floors: MR zone; Change standard from 10 ft to 9 ft. Also apply to LR
and LR-1A.
LR-1A and LR:
5 ft for structures ≤25 ft in height;
109 ft for structures >25 ft in height
MR:
109 ft when adjacent to an LR or MR
district
081423
K. Austin - email/
C. Kresk - email
Section
17.16.040.A.2
Required second-story stepbacks in LR and MR
zones: Add that this section only apples to new
single-family residences.
Also add a cross-reference to Table 17.16.030.
A.2. Second stories for new single-family
residences in both new construction
and additions, must be stepped back
eight feet from the ground floor front
façade, unless the front elevation has a
porch a minimum of six feet deep that
extends 80 percent or more of the
width of the front elevation, excluding a
garage. Also refer to Table 17.16.030.-
Min. Interior Side Setback, upper floors.
081423 K. Austin - email Section
17.16.040.A.4.a
Wall planes: Change 10 ft to 12 ft to be more
efficient in construction.
4.a. Unbroken wall planes of 1012 feet
or more in width are prohibited;
081523
Planning
Commission
Section
17.16.040.A.8
Parking Frontage. Adjust the standards to allow for
exceptions such as a pie-shaped lot with a very
narrow frontage on the street. Doris Court was
cited as an example.
A.8. Parking Frontage. The total width of
parking areas visible from the street,
including open parking, carports, and
garages, but excluding parking located
behind buildings, must not exceed 30
percent of any street frontage. This
limitation does not apply to irregular or
pie-shaped lots where the lot width
measured at the property line is
narrower than the rear lot width,
rowhouses, or frontages along alleys.
081423 K. Austin - email
Section
17.16.040.B.6
Add a new standard that if a project includes a
garage that faces an alley that is 20 ft or less in
width, the face of the garage be setback 5 ft from
the property line to facilitate turning movements
into or out of the garage.
d. The front face of a garage placed on
an alley ≤20 feet in width must be
setback a minimum of five feet from the
property line.
081423 J. Denton - email
Table 17.17.030.A CB Zone: 'Add a new End Note clarifying that the 10,000 sq ft individual floor area limitation only
applies to the Main Street Corridor south of Adams
Street. Insert a new End Note 1. Renumber the
following End Notes.
New End Note 1 Only applies to the
Main Street Corridor, south of Adams
Street.
081423 J. Denton - email
Table 17.17.030.A Update End Note #6 to allow other uses beside rooftop bars in the CB and MU zones.
6 Roof top barsuses are only allowed in
the CB and MU zoning districts
081423 J. Denton - email
Table 17.17.030.B Max. Height, Principal Structure: Add that parcels not on Main Street may not exceed 46 feet.
CB Zone: 35 ft; 30 ft within 25 feet of a
residential district and facing Oak
Street; 46 ft for parcels not on Main
Street.
Agenda Item #10.6.
Date of
Comment
Name of
commenter
Section/Subsection
Name
Description of edit Notes/Proposed Edit to the Code Date edit made in final document
081523
Planning
Commission
Table 17.19.030.B A-20 Zone: Update the Max. Lot Coverage (Includes accessory structures) standard to use a max. lot
coverage threshold in square feet, rather than
acreage, which was confusing.
Max. Lot Coverage (includes accessory
structures):
A-20 lots 2 - ≤5 acres: 9,000 sf
A-20 lots >5 acres: 10,000 sf
081523
Planning
Commission
Table 17.19.030.B A-20 Zone: Update End Note #4 to reduce the habitable space allowed in accessory structures
from 50% to 25% of the gross floor area of the
primary structure.
4 The habitable space in accessory
structures may not exceed 2550% of the
gross floor area of the primary
structure.
081523
Planning
Commission
Section 17.22.030.B. Accessory Dwelling Units: Effect of Conforming.
Two options proposed:
1. Update this section so that ADUs and JADUs do
not count toward minimum density requirements
of the zone where they are proposed.
2. Update this section so that only JADUs do not
count toward minimum density requirements of
the zone where they are proposed.
Refer to the Staff Report for the
October 10th City Council hearing.
081423
J. Dickerson -
email
Section
17.22.030.G.2.a
Accessory Dwelling Units: Add a new sentence
clarifying that if there is adequate sewer capacity,
a separate sewer connection for a new ADU is not
required.
G.2.a. If an ADU or JADU is constructed
with a new single-family home, a
separate utility connection directly
between the ADU or JADU and the
utility, and payment of the normal
connection fee and capacity charge for
a new dwelling, are required. For
detached ADUs where there is a
demonstrated adequate sewer capacity
acceptable to the City Engineer and
cleaning/review of the sewer lines has
been performed with cctv technology,
and an application has been submitted
to the City Engineer to substantiate
capacity calculations, a separate
connection for the ADU is not required.
Part IV - Citywide Standards
081523
Planning
Commission
Section
17.26.090.E.5
Add a new paragraph d. to insert a cross-reference
to applicable CFR codes. In the alternative, include
this reference in the Building Code. "The EV
charging station shall comply with the availability
and uptime standards in the Code of Federal
Regulations, 23 CFR 680.106(e) and 680.116(b)."
No edit to the Zoning Code as City staff
have confirmed this text is more
appropriate for inclusion in the City's
Green Building or Energy Code.
Part V - Definitions and Rules of Measurement
081523 City staff
Chapter 17.32 Definition of Demolition: update to exclude the roof structure of a building.
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.
Agenda Item #10.6.
Date of
Comment
Name of
commenter
Section/Subsection
Name
Description of edit Notes/Proposed Edit to the Code Date edit made in final document
081523
Planning
Commission
Chapter 17.32 Definition of Visibility Triangle: Update the definition so that the clear area of the visibility
triangle is measured from the face of the curb
rather than the property line. Update the caption
to the illustration.
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. [Update the illustration
and the caption - Figure 17.32.E:
Setbacks Visibility Triangle]
081423 J. Ponte - email
Section 17.34.030.E Decks. Add rule of measurement to measure deck height at a particular location, e.g. highest point,
mid-point, lowest point.
Decks. Deck height is determined by
measuring from the average elevation
of the ground below the deck to the top
of the floor of the deck directly above
the ground below.
081523
Planning
Commission
Section 17.34.060 Measuring Lot Coverage: As lot coverage is not a ratio, the first sentence is incorrect. Further, it will be deleted as this sentence is redundant to the
definition of lot coverage in Chapter 17.32,
Definitions of Terms.
Lot coverage is the ratio of the total
footprint area of all structures on a lot,
to the net lot area, typically expressed
as a percentage. The footprints of all
principal and accessory structures,
including, but not limited to, garages,
carports, covered patios, and roofed
porches, shall be summed in order to
calculate lot coverage. The following
structures shall be excluded from the
calculation:
Agenda Item #10.6.
83578.00101\41694911.1
Memorandum
To: City Council
City of St. Helena
File No.: 83578.00101
From: Ethan Walsh
City Attorney
Date: October 2, 2023
Re: Application of Senate Bill 330 (“SB 330”) to St. Helena Comprehensive Zoning Code Update
I. Introduction
As the City has moved forward with the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, some members of the public have expressed concern that proposed new requirements in the Twenty Acre Agriculture (“A-20”) zoning district would violate Government Code Section 66300,1 which was added to State law by Senate Bill 330, also known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (“SB 330”). Our office has reviewed these concerns, and have concluded that the proposed amendments to the A-20 zoning district would not violate Section 66300. This memo provides background on the restrictions set forth in Section 66300, and briefly outlines the changes to the Zoning Code that are alleged to conflict with Section 66300. The memo concludes with an analysis of the application of Section 663300 to the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, and an explanation as to why we have concluded that the proposed update is allowed under Section 66300.
II. Background Law
SB 330 was enacted in 2019 as one of many bills adopted over the past several years to address California’s on-going, state-wide housing shortage. In adopting this bill, the State Legislature found that California is experiencing a housing supply crisis, with housing demand far outstripping supply. The Legislature further found that California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over the next 7 years. To help address this housing shortage, the Legislature enacted SB 330 to, among other things, suspend certain restrictions on the development of new housing during this on-going shortage. (See Senate Bill 330 (2019) §2 [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB330&search_ keywords=housing].)
SB 330 imposed limitations on cities’ ability to place certain new restrictions on the development of new housing, including the following:
1 All statutory references in this memo are to the California Government Code, unless otherwise specified.
Agenda Item #10.6.
Best Best & Krieger LLP
83578.00101\41694911.1
- 2 -
Notwithstanding any other law except as provided in subdivision (i), with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, an affected county or an affected city shall not enact a development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of the following effects:
(A) Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district in effect at the time of the proposed change, below what was allowed under the land use designation or zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) or subdivision (i). For purposes of this subparagraph, “reducing the intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site's residential development capacity.
(§66300(b)(1) [emphasis added].)
As noted, these restrictions apply “except as provided in [Section 66300] subdivision (i).” Subdivision (i) provides in part that:
This section [66300] does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city, including the local electorate acting through the initiative process, from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use, or reducing the intensity of land use, if the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity. (§66300(i) [emphasis added].)
III. Proposed Changes to Zoning Code
The current Zoning Code allows one single family residence on each parcel in the A-20 zoning district that was in existence on October 1, 1993 as a permitted use.2 (St. Helena Municipal Code §17.20.020(A).) The current Zoning Code does not regulate the floor area ratio or allowable square footage for single family homes within the A-20 zoning district. In other words, there is no express limit on the size of residential units in the current Zoning Code. The 2 The A-20 zoning district also allows a number of accessory structures as permitted uses, including but not limited to accessory dwelling units in accordance with State law.
Agenda Item #10.6.
Best Best & Krieger LLP
83578.00101\41694911.1
- 3 -
proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code update would continue to allow one single family residence per parcel, but would place limitations on the size of those units. Specifically, on A-20 parcels of 2-5 acres, the maximum ground level floor area is proposed to be 4,500 square feet, and the maximum second story floor area would be 35% of the ground floor area. This allows for a maximum total floor area of 6,075 square feet. On A-20 parcels larger than 5 acres, the maximum ground level floor area is proposed to be 5,000 square feet, and the maximum second story floor area of 20% of the ground floor area. This allows for a total floor area of 6,000 square feet.
IV. Legal Analysis
Some members of the public have argued that the proposed changes to the A-20 zoning would change the zoning of those parcels to “a less intensive use” in violation of Section 66300(b)(1)(A). Since Section 66300 defines “reducing the intensity of land use” to include reductions to floor area ratio,3 they believe that the proposed restrictions on home size in the A20 zoning district, where none previously existed, effectively results in the reduction in the allowable floor area ratio for these parcels, and is therefore prohibited by Section 66300(b)(1)(A).
However, Section 66300(b)(1)(A) only prohibits reductions in the intensity of land use “except as otherwise provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) or subdivision (i).” Subdivision (i) provides that a city can change a zoning ordinance to provide for a less intensive use “if the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity.” In this context, “residential capacity” refers to the number of residential units that may be developed within a jurisdiction. When cities prepare an update to their housing element, they conduct an analysis of available sites to determine the residential capacity of each of those sites. (See §65583.2(c)(2); see also HCD Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 19 [describing the capacity analysis process that cities must follow as part of the Housing Element update process] [https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing\element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf ].) As part of this analysis, cities must consider the imposition of land use controls that would affect the development capacity of the identified sites (meaning that they would reduce the number of units that could be constructed on a given site). (See §§65583.2(c)(2), 65583(a)(5); see also Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 20.) The types of land use controls considered include maximum lot coverage, height, open space requirements, parking requirements and floor area ratios, which could reduce the residential capacity (or number of units that could be developed) on a given site. These land use controls can in some cases limit the number of units that can be built on a given parcel, even if a higher density is allowed. State law therefore considers these factors as part of the Housing Element site analysis, to determine whether these controls will limit residential capacity.
3 Floor area ratio refers to the ratio of a building’s total floor area to the size of the parcel upon which it is located. It is a frequently used method for regulating building size in land use planning.
Agenda Item #10.6.
Best Best & Krieger LLP
83578.00101\41694911.1
- 4 -
Similarly, by enacting SB 330, the Legislature prohibited cities from enacting new land use controls of the type unless the city concurrently changes development standards to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity.
Therefore, these types of restrictions are prohibited if they reduce the number of units that can be produced in a jurisdiction, but in those cases where the city ensures no net loss in residential units, these types of land use controls are not allowed. In the case of the City’s Comprehensive Zoning Code update, the new regulations proposed for the A-20 zoning district do not cause any reduction in residential capacity.
The current Zoning Code allows a single residential unit on each A-20 parcel, and the proposed update will also allow one residential unit per parcel—there will just be new limitations on the size of those units if the proposed update passes. Further, there are changes to other parcels throughout the City that will substantially increase the City’s overall residential capacity. As the staff materials indicate, the Zoning Code update proposes a new Mixed Use Zoning District which allows for residential development at up to 20 units per acre in areas of the City where residential development was previously not allowed. The Comprehensive Zoning Code update would rezone 19 acres within the City to Mixed Use Zoning, which would increase residential capacity in the City by 380 units. Even if other constraints would prevent the full 380 units from being developed, this still results not only in no net loss of residential capacity, but a substantial increase in residential capacity. Given that the proposed changes to the A-20 zoning district would not result in any reduction in residential capacity, and the Comprehensive Zoning Code update taken as a whole the proposed update falls within the exception in subdivision (i), and the proposed changes are permitted under SB 330.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Agenda Item #10.6.
! !
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
" " " " " " "
" " " " " " "
" " " " " " "
" " " " " " "
" " " " " " "
" " " " " " "
" " " " " " "
" " " " " " "
" " " " " " "
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
Napa River
York Creek
Conn Creek
City of St. Helena Zoning Map June 2023
Zoning Districts
Business and Professional Office (BPO)
Central Business (CB)
Industrial (I)
Mixed-Use (MU)
Open Space (OS)
Parks and Recreation (PR)
Public & Quasi-Public (PQP)
Service Commercial (SC)
Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20)
Winery (W)
Woodlands & Watershed (WW)
High Density Residential (HR)
Medium Density Residential (MR)
Low Density Residential (LR)
Low Density Residential One Acre Minimum (LR-1A)
Highway 29 Specific Plan
Historic Preservation Overlay
" " "
" " "
" " "
Mobile Home Park Overlay
Parking Exemption District
Planned Development Overlay
St. Helena City Limits
! ! !
! St. Helena Urban Limit
Parcels
Waterways
0 ®
990 1,980
Feet
Notes: Refer to Figure 9.1 in the General Plan for Flood Plain Overlay. This Zoning Map is subject to change and should only be used for reference. For the most up to date Zoning information please contact the City of St. Helena Planning Department.
Main St
Sulphur Creek
Agenda Item #10.6.
Name Property Owners Number Street Name Town State Zip
United Methodist Church of St Helena Property Owners 1310 Adams Street St. Helena CA 94574 St Helena Elementary School Property Owners 1325 Adams Street St. Helena CA 94574 George W. Schmidt House Property Owners 1611 Adams Street St. Helena CA 94574 Pritchard Building Property Owners 1104 Adams Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1106 Adams Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1108 Adams Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1110 Adams Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1112 Adams Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1410 Adams Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1518 Adams Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1552 Adams Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1706 Adams Street St. Helena CA 94574
Frank L. Alexander House Property Owners 1207 Alexander Court St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1025 Allison Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 825 Allison Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 910 Allison Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 917 Allison Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
C.D. Mooney House Property Owners 1269 Allyn Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1279 Allyn Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Dowdell House Property Owners 1317 Allyn Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1252 Allyn Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1556 Allyn Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1321 Allyn Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1325 Allyn Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1329 Allyn Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1323 Allyn Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1327 Allyn Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1330 Allyn Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 945 Brown Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1043 Charter Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Frank Sciaronis Winery & Distillery Property Owners 1050 Charter Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 967 Charter Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 741 Charter Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Proposed Local Register
Agenda Item #10.6.
Napa Valley Olive Oil Manufactory Property Owners 835 Charter Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1017 Charter Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 831 Charter Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 849 Charter Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 905 Charter Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 917 Charter Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 931 Charter Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 943 Charter Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 957 Charter Oak Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Special Internal Revenue Bonded Warehouse Property Owners 1216 Church Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1114 Church Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1132 Church Street St. Helena CA 94574
Dean York House Property Owners 2070 Dean York Lane St. Helena CA 94574 J ames Dowdell House Property Owners 415 Dowdell Lane St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1102 Edwards Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1133 Edwards Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1136 Edwards Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1160 Edwards Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1153 Edwards Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1161 Edwards Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1212 Edwards Street St. Helena CA 94574 Ivy Loeber House Property Owners 1217 Edwards Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1220 Edwards Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1227 Edwards Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 825 Fulton Lane St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1512 Hudson Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
George Schonewald Estate Property Owners 1401 Hudson Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 921 Hunt Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
D.O. Hunt house Property Owners 957 Hunt Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1000 Hunt Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 850 Hunt Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 916 Hunt Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 940 Hunt Avenue St. Helena CA 94574
Walter Metzner House Property Owners 1407 Kearney Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1417 Kearney Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1426 Kearney Street St. Helena CA 94574 Agenda Item #10.6.
Property Owners 1427 Kearney Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1439 Kearney Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1467 Kearney Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1489 Kearney Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1505 Kearney Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1530 Kearney Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1543 Kearney Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1451 Library Lane St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1475 Library Lane St. Helena CA 94574
Kraft House and Wine Cellar Property Owners 1902 Madrona Avenue St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1220 Madrona Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1234 Madrona Street St. Helena CA 94574 American Legion Post Property Owners 1291 Madrona Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1341 Madrona Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1513 Madrona Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1545 Madrona Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1549 Madrona Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1553 Madrona Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1548 Madrona Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1702 Madrona Street St. Helena CA 94574 Owen Wade Building/Smiths Pharmacy Property Owners 1347 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Wall House Property Owners 1414 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 St. Helena Post Office Property Owners 1461 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Burn & Wise Cellars, Greystone Cellars Property Owners 2555 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Charles Krug Winery Property Owners 2800 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 St Helena High School/V intage Hall Property Owners 437 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 John Money's Planing Mill Property Owners 1057 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Noble Building, Galleron Building Property Owners 1200 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1202 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1204 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
A. Goodman Building Property Owners 1201 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 David Building, Little Dress Factory Property Owners 1231 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Hunt Building Property Owners 1302 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1304 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1306 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1308 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Agenda Item #10.6.
Windsor Hotel, Hotel St Helena Property Owners 1305 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1307 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1309 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Richie Block Property Owners 1327 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1329 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1331 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1333 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1335 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1337 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
St. Helena Star Building Property Owners 1328 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 St. Helena Ioof Hall/Odd Fellows Property Owners 1352 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1354 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
KettleWell Building, V asconis Phar. Property Owners 1381 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Greenfield House Property Owners 1508 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Fuller House Property Owners 1817 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 V ann-Anderson House, St. Gothard's Property Owners 1915 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Dr. George Belden Crane House Property Owners 397 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Old St. Helena High School/ Vintage Hall Property Owners 473 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Ives House, Bellani House Property Owners 738 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Bank of St Helena, Pastime Bar Property Owners 1351 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1000 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1028 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
A. Goodman Building Property Owners 1205 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574 Property Owners 1219 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1235 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1237 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1239 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1243 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1367 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1375 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1515 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1523 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1537 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1547 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1550 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Property Owners 1558 Main Street St. Helena CA 94574
Agenda Item #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
! !
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
! "
#$#% &' (!(
)
*
+
,-
"" )*
.
"
*
)/ !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 #10.6.
! "#
$
%
&
#
'
() !*
)
$
+
",-. '
%
$
"
'
%
$
'
(/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 #10.6.
! "
#
$
%
&'
(
'
) "
'
*
(%
'
+
,
-. "
(
)
'
(/
%
% '
"" (/
!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 #10.6.
! "
#
"
$
"
%
$ "
&$
"
!$
%
"
'
'"
"
(
')
"
!
)
*+
"
'
,,
-
&./
'
%
*
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!
+
"
' "
-
'
%
$=*'
,
3
!
Agenda Item #10.6.
! "
#$%&'&()*+,-,./010/-2/-345,6/7
Agenda Item #10.6.
! "#
$%&'(')*+,-./)0.123'345/-
Agenda Item #10.6.
! "#
$%&'
(
(
$)"
"
*+
$)'
(
,*)-
$-
.
$ /
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 #10.6.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./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 #10.6.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./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 #10.6.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./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 #10.6.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./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 #10.6.
! "#
$%&%'()*)(&*+),-,%.(&/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 #10.6.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./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 #10.6.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./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 #10.6.
! "
#$%$&'()('%)*(+,+$-'%./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 #10.6.
! "#
$%&%'()*)(&*+),-,%.(&/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 #10.6.
Zoning Code Update
City Council Public Hearing:
October 10, 2023
6:00 PM
Agenda Item #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
5 Multi-year Process
We are
here.
Agenda Item #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
8 Part I: General Provisions
• Part I includes:
• Title, Authority and Purpose
• Reserved
There are no substantive edits in this Part
Agenda Item #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
33 Historical Preservation Overlay (HPO) Map
Agenda Item #10.6.
34 Zoning Map
Agenda Item #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
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 #10.6.
40 Thank you!
Agenda Item #10.6.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Department: Finance
DATE: October 24, 2023
FROM: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Adoption of a Comprehensive User Fee Study Report and Resolution Adopting a Comprehensive Master
Fee Schedule Establishing and Amending Certain User
Fees for City Services.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Adopt the Comprehensive User Fee Study Report and
approve the attached resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
November 24, 2015 - Approval of Professional Services
Agreement with Willdan Financial Services.
November 14, 2017 - Approval of Amendment #1 for
Water and Wastewater Impact Fees.
October 9, 2018 - Approval of Amendment #2 to Update
Cost Allocation Plan.
August 24, 2021 - Approval of Amendment #3 to Add
Commercial Linkage Fee Analysis.
July 25, 2023 - Approval of Amendment #4 for Additional Funding to Complete User Fee Study.
August 8, 2023 - Approval of Amendment #5 for Additional Funding to Complete the Development Impact Fee Study.
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
The purpose is to adopt the Comprehensive User Fee
Study Report and implement the newly adopted fees by
January 1, 2024.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Adoption of the user fee study does not have a financial impact, but the implementation of the new fees on January 1, 2024 will have an impact on future revenues depending on the level of service activities. An analysis was
conducted on existing fees, and it was estimated that there will be an annual increase in revenues of approximately $225,000 to the General Fund. The analysis did not take into consideration the potential revenue that will be
generated by the 56 new fees that will be added or
Recreation programming fees.
BACKGROUND:
Agenda Item #11.2.
Cities must regularly update Development Impact fees and User Fees in order to recover costs that are attributable to certain services and for which benefits accrue to specific limited number of individuals or businesses. At the current time, the City has been experiencing a gap in the revenue collected, relative to expenditures and expectations for services. There are several underfunded city operational functions, and the infrastructure, parks, roads, and other facilities are visibly displaying the impact of underinvestment. As a result, the City is exploring several stable revenue generating alternatives including a real estate transfer tax ballot measure in November 2024. It is also important that the City update its fees to allow for more accurate recovery of its costs.
The last full cost recovery study for the City was completed in November 2011 and an updated fee schedule was adopted by City Council on March 27, 2012 by Resolution 2012-21.
In September 2015, staff issued a Request for Proposals for a Full Cost Services and Development Impact Fee Study to include a cost allocation plan, user fee study, and a development impact fee study. On October 9, 2015 the City received four proposal which were reviewed by City staff and an outside consultant. In November 2015, the City selected Willdan Financial Services to conduct a Full Cost Services and Development Impact Fee Study and entered into a professional services agreement on November 24, 2015 by Resolution 2015-146.
The cost allocation plan is completed prior to the user fee study, as it is used to guide the cost recovery of the fees.
The purpose of the cost allocation plan is to ensure that the City is maximizing the recovery of direct and indirect costs from specific operating departments, as well as enterprise and capital projects. Indirect costs are costs incurred for common or joint objectives and therefore cannot be readily and specifically identified with a particular project or activity. The plan provides a systematic and rational methodology for identifying and distributing administrative costs that is fair, comprehensive, well documented, and fully defensible. The cost allocation plan was completed and received by City Council in January 2020 (Attachment A).
DISCUSSION:
State and local governments use charges and fees to help fund services. When certain services provided especially benefit a particular group, then governments typically consider charges and fees on the direct recipient of those that receive benefits from such services. However, many governments provide subsidies to various users for policy reasons, including the ability of residents or businesses to pay. Well-designed charges and fees not only reduce the need for additional revenues sources but promote service efficiency.
Agenda Item #11.2.
User fees reviewed by City staff and Willdan Financial Services included, but were not limited to the following: permits, recreation, inspection, planning, administrative, engineering, library, fines, permits, fire alarm, abatement, etc.
The principal goal of the study was to help the City determine the full cost of the services that the City provides. In addition, Willdan established a series of additional objectives including:
Developing a rational basis for setting fees.
Identifying subsidy amount, if applicable of each fee in the model. Enhancing fairness and equity.
Ensuring compliance with State Law.
Developing and updatable and comprehensive list of fees. Maintaining accordance with City policies and goals.
The results of the study helped the City to better understand the true costs associated with the services provided and served as a basis for making informed policy decisions regarding recommendations for appropriate fees. Additionally, the study involved the identification of existing and potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, and calculation of individual service costs (fees) or program cost recovery levels.
If the City’s principal goal of the study is to maximize revenues from user fees, Willdan would recommend setting user fees at 100% of the full cost identified in this study.
However, revenue enhancement is not the only goal of a cost-of-service study, and sometimes full-cost recovery is not needed, desired, or appropriate. Other City and departmental goals, City Council priorities, policy initiatives, past experience, implementation issues, and other internal and external factors may influence staff recommendations and City Council decisions.
In this case, the proper identification of additional services (new or existing services) and creation of a consistent and comprehensive fee schedule was the primary objective of this study. City staff has reviewed the full costs and identified the “recommended fee levels” for consideration by City Council. Details pertaining to the recommended fees are included in Attachment B.
A summary of the recommend changes are as follows:
Department # of
Fees
Added
# of Fee
Increases
# of Fee
Decreases
# of Fees
with No
Change
Other
General City 1 4 2 42 2 fees changed
from Flat Fee to
Printing Costs +
Admin%
Planning 2 29 1 14 15% Average
Agenda Item #11.2.
Increase for Flat
Services
Building 10 13 10 62
Public Works 13 36 3 6
Library No Analysis
Parks &
Recreation
28 6 6 9
Police 9 3 55 5% Average
Change
Fire 2 1 4 3
Reasons for Cost Increases/Decreases Compared to Current Fees Within the fee tables in Attachment B, the differences are identified between the full costs calculated through the Study and the fee levels currently in effect. The reasons for differences between the two can arise from several possible factors, including:
Previous fee levels may have been intentionally set at levels less than full cost based on City Council policy decisions at that time;
Staffing levels and the positions that complete the service activities for which the fee is charged may vary from when the previous costs were calculated; Personnel and operating costs have increased since the last study; Costs that this Study identified as part of the full cost of services may not have been accounted for in a previous study, such as:
o Departmental overhead and administration costs;
o Vehicle and Facility Maintenance support costs;
o Indirect overhead from the Cost Allocation Plan; and
o Changes in processes and procedures within a department or the City.
Public Notice
A public notice was published on October 7, 2023 in the Napa Valley Register. The proposed fee schedule, data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charges are levied was made available for public review, electronically on the City's website by clicking the following link: User Fee Study Report or by appointment in the City Clerk’s office.
Staff Recommendation
Based on the results of the User Fee Study, certain fees are recommended to be added, removed, increased, or decreased to reflect current program costs, while other fees are advised to remain unchanged due to the City’s desire to be more “user friendly” or more comparable to other cities. Staff is recommended that the current User Fee Schedule be updated based on the results of the User Fee Study.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - St Helena Cost Allocation Plan
Agenda Item #11.2.
Attachment B - St Helena User Fee Study Report
Resolution - User Fee Study
Exhibit B - St Helena Master User Fee Schedule
St Helena User Fee Presentation
Agenda Item #11.2.
CITY OF ST HELENA
Cost Allocation Plan
ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item #11.2.
1 Cost Allocation Plan
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................. 1 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Certification of Cost Allocation Plan ................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Approach .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Applications .................................................................................................................................................................. 9 OMB Super Circular and 2 CFR Part 200 ....................................................................................................................... 9 Central Service Departments ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Distribution Bases ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 Allocable Costs and Distribution Bases .......................................................................................................... 12 Allocable Costs ........................................................................................................................................................... 12 Central Service Allocation Methodology .................................................................................................................... 13 Section 1: Non‐Departmental ................................................................................................................................ 13 Section 2: City Council............................................................................................................................................ 13 Section 3: City Manager ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Section 4: Finance .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Section 5: Attorney ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Section 6: Public Buildings ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Iterative Allocation ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix A ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix B ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
Agenda Item #11.2.
2 Cost Allocation Plan
List of Tables
Table 1: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (OMB Compliant CAP) .................................................... 5 Table 2: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (Full CAP) ........................................................................ 6 Table 3: Allocable Cost Summary ................................................................................................................... 12 Table A‐1: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) ................................................................... 19 Table A‐2: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) .................................................................... 20 Table B‐1: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP) ............................................................................................. 23 Agenda Item #11.2.
3 Cost Allocation Plan
Certification of Cost Allocation Plan
This is to certify that I have reviewed the cost allocation plan submitted herewith and to the best of my knowledge and belief:
(1) All costs included in this proposal to establish cost allocations or billings for Fiscal Year 2019‐20 are allowable in accordance with the requirements of this Part and the Federal award(s) to which they apply.
Unallowable costs have been adjusted for in allocating costs as indicated in the cost allocation plan. (2) All costs included in this proposal are properly allocable to Federal awards on the basis of a beneficial or causal relationship between the expenses incurred and the Federal awards to which they are allocated in accordance with applicable requirements. Further, the same costs that have been treated as indirect costs have not been claimed as direct costs. Similar types of costs have been accounted for consistently.
I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.
Governmental Unit: City of St Helena
Signature: ___________________________________________________________________ Name of Official: ___________________________________________________________________ Title: ___________________________________________________________________ Date of Execution: ___________________________________________________________________ Agenda Item #11.2.
4 Cost Allocation Plan
Executive Summary
This cost allocation plan (“CAP”) summarizes a comprehensive analysis that has been completed for the City of St Helena, California (the “City”) to determine the appropriate allocation of costs from central service departments to the operating departments. The primary objective is to allocate costs from departments that provide services internally to operating departments that conduct the day‐to‐day operations necessary to serve the community. These internal service costs typically represent costs (a) incurred for a common or joint purpose benefiting more than one cost objective, and (b) not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted, without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. The term "indirect costs," as used herein, applies to costs of this type originating in the central service departments.
To ensure central service department costs are appropriately allocated to the operating departments, Willdan analyzed the City’s cost code structure to determine which types of costs are allowable versus unallowable in accordance with standard and accepted cost allocation principles. The term “allocable costs” as used herein, applies to costs that are allowable for allocation.
The study is comprised of two separate allocation plans. Table 1 is the summary results of the allocation in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget Super Circular (the OMB Super Circular) and CFR Part 200 (Cost Principles). Table 2 that follows is the summary results of the full plan. The report below includes descriptions of the differences between the two plans, their separate purposes, and specific details of when the plans deviate from each other.
Agenda Item #11.2.
5 Cost Allocation Plan
Table 1: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments
(OMB Compliant CAP)
Allocated Cost Summary Fiscal Year 2019‐2020
Direct Cost Base
Operating Department/ Division / Fund Total Allocation
Modified Total
Direct Cost
Indirect Cost
Rate
$4,610,124 $15,413,138 30%
Operating Department
45: Planning/Building $456,551 $1,439,221 32%
46: Library $383,390 $1,025,103 37%
47: Parks & Recreation $152,362 $272,039 56%
48: Fire $469,211 $1,412,085 33%
49: Police $896,491 $3,311,835 27%
50: Public Works $555,367 $1,666,948 33%
283: Tree City USA $16,116 $122,293 13%
286: Bocce Ball Enterprise $18,535 $68,290 27%
289: Recreation Programs $120,141 $492,115 24%
380: Friends and Foundation $46,656 $135,000 35%
561: Water Enterprise $934,075 $3,864,884 24%
571: Sewer Enterprise $561,229 $1,603,325 35%
Agenda Item #11.2.
6 Cost Allocation Plan
Table 2: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (Full CAP) Allocated Cost Summary Fiscal Year 2019‐2020
Direct Cost Base
Operating Department/ Division / Fund Total Allocation
Modified Total
Direct Cost
Indirect Cost
Rate
$5,359,553 $15,413,138 35%
Operating Department
45: Planning/Building $553,184 $1,439,221 38%
46: Library $435,062 $1,025,103 42%
47: Parks & Recreation $168,194 $272,039 62%
48: Fire $528,931 $1,412,085 37%
49: Police $1,038,309 $3,311,835 31%
50: Public Works $669,614 $1,666,948 40%
283: Tree City USA $19,199 $122,293 16%
286: Bocce Ball Enterprise $21,293 $68,290 31%
289: Recreation Programs $138,506 $492,115 28%
380: Friends and Foundation $52,909 $135,000 39%
561: Water Enterprise $1,089,558 $3,864,884 28%
571: Sewer Enterprise $644,794 $1,603,325 40%
Agenda Item #11.2.
7 Cost Allocation Plan
Introduction
In the early 1970s, the cost allocation plan concept was introduced to many government agencies. The purpose of a typical cost allocation plan is to identify costs related to rendering internal central support services and allocate those costs to operating departments or programs that utilize and benefit from them, in a fair and equitable manner.
Before indirect costs and central support service charges may be claimed for reimbursement by an operating department, there must be some formal means of identifying, accumulating and distributing these types of costs to all benefiting departments. Regardless of whether an agency has a formal comprehensive cost accounting system, the best method of accumulating, identifying, and determining a distribution of indirect costs is a cost allocation plan.
A City is made up of many departments, each with their own specific purposes or functions. Departments whose primary function is to provide support internally to other City departments are called central services.
Examples of central services are City Manager, Attorney, Finance, and Council. Within these groups there are numerous functions performed that provides support to the direct cost centers. The direct cost centers, or departments and funds, that require support from Central Services and provide services directly to the community through their day‐to‐day operations, are called operating departments. Examples of operating departments are Police, Public Works, Community Services, and Building. The Cost Allocation Plan allocates the costs of the central services to the operating departments based on the nature of the functions of each central service, upon which the operating departments depend. This is done to determine the total cost associated with providing direct services. The overall goal of the cost allocation plan process is to allow cities to allocate a portion of the central service costs to the operating departments, thus 1) accounting for “all” costs, direct and indirect, for each operating department, and 2) facilitating the calculation of a fully burdened cost estimate of providing services to the public.
The purpose of this study is to:
Identify the central support and operating departments in the City; Identify the functions and services provided by the central departments; Identify allocable and non‐allocable costs associated with the City’s central service departments; and
Distribute those costs to operating entities in a fair and equitable manner.
Agenda Item #11.2.
8 Cost Allocation Plan
Approach
Methodology
The way in which each Indirect Service provides support to the operating departments is determined in order to perform allocations in a manner consistent with the nature of that Indirect Service. This ensures that the costs can be allocated to each operating department in a fair and equitable way. The Cost Allocation Plan identifies the functions of each central service department, and then determines a methodology to allocate or spread the central service costs in a manner that best represents the nature of those functions.
The mathematical representations of central service functions used to allocate indirect costs are commonly called distribution bases. A distribution basis is a set of data displayed as the level of measure of each department’s participation in a specific activity or City function. This basis is then used to distribute costs that reasonably relate to the activity or City function that the basis represents. Some examples of distribution bases are salary and benefits costs, number of full‐time equivalent employees, and number of processed transactions. The data sets associated with these distribution bases for each department is collected to facilitate the allocation of indirect costs.
The methodology used for this Cost Allocation Plan is the iterative method, which is one of the most equitable methods for allocating costs from central services to operating departments. While not used as prevalently as simpler allocation methods, it is widely considered to be the most accurate. The iterative method utilizes a recursive application of central service cost distribution to allocate indirect costs. In the first step, the allocable costs of central service departments are identified and distributed to all departments including the central service departments themselves, based on the appropriate allocation bases that were selected to represent the manner in which central services are utilized. This is repeated ad infinitum until all costs have been distributed to the operating departments, and none remain with the central service departments.
As an example, consider the allocation of central service costs associated with Public Buildings. The function of Public Buildings is identified, and the appropriate distribution basis is determined to be the number of total square footage of maintenance space maintained by Public Buildings per department and fund. The allowable costs are then distributed to all City departments and funds based on their proportional share of the maintenance space square footage, including other central services. The costs allocated from central service to central service in the initial allocation are then allocated out using the same distribution methodology. This function is performed as many times as necessary until all costs for Pubic Buildings has been allocated.
All central service departments are treated equally. That is to say, this method is performed concurrently for the allowable costs in each of the central service departments for each iteration until all costs associated with the central service departments have been allocated to each direct service department. The method is complete when the total amount of allocable costs remaining in the central service departments is equal to zero.
Agenda Item #11.2.
9 Cost Allocation Plan
Applications
Public agencies use cost allocation plans for many purposes such as internal accounting, the justification of user fees, application for reimbursement from federal programs or the determination of administrative effort associated with special districts and/or municipal service activities. In many of these cases, the agency will be required to certify that the costs identified are “reasonable”. Per the Code of Federal Regulations, a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when determining the amount that a public agency should be reimbursed for central service overhead activities associated with a federally funded program. Additionally, public agencies should consider special care to only identify the portion of central service costs that have not been reimbursed through other means (such as grants, user fee revenues, transfers from other departments or internal service funds) to avoid double‐counting. These cost reductions are done before the allocation methodologies are used and are detailed within the model itself.
OMB Super Circular and 2 CFR Part 200
This report details the allocations for two separate cost allocation plans. The primary model, presented in text and tables in the below sections and in Appendix A, provides a plan that complies with the Office of Management and Budget Super Circular (the OMB Super Circular) and CFR Part 200 (Cost Principles) that are used to determine central overhead costs incurred while carrying out activities associated with Federal awards, cost reimbursement contracts and some other intergovernmental agreements (as required). The secondary model presented in Appendix B of this report is the full cost allocation plan, which the City should use for standard City operations and budgeting. Unless otherwise indicated, the details of this report and Appendix A contain the OMB compliant allocation plan. The Appendix B tables contain the full cost plan and utilize the same distribution methodology as the OMB Compliant plan. While the overall methodology used for both plans is the same, there are specific guidelines that require additional cost exemptions for OMB Super Circular compliance outside of what was done for the full cost plan. Where such exemptions are done in the methodology has been explained below. Some commonly encountered examples that are usually exempt under OMB Super Circular guidelines are:
General Advertising
Bad Debt
Contingencies
Litigation
Debt Service
Entertainment
Capital
Lobbying
Legislative Body (City Council)
Promotional Items
Agenda Item #11.2.
10 Cost Allocation Plan
Central Service Departments
Six (6) central service functions were identified for the purposes of this cost allocation plan:
Non‐Departmental
Council
City Manager
Finance
Attorney
Public Buildings
Agenda Item #11.2.
11 Cost Allocation Plan
Distribution Bases
Distribution bases are the allocation factors that may be used to distribute the allocable costs to all departments and funds. As discussed previously, distribution bases are measurable and readily available data that are utilized to represent activities or functions, and which are then used to distribute costs matching that activity or function. Below are the bases that were analyzed in this study and used to allocate Central Services costs to operating departments. Number of FTE Employees – The number of full‐time equivalent personnel for each department and fund.
City Council Agenda Frequency – City Council agendas spanning a 12‐month period were used to determine the number of times each department and fund had matters brought before the City Council.
Total Allocable Cost – The total allowable expenditure budgeted for each department and fund for FY 2019‐20 which excludes capital, debt, non‐operational transfers, and any other costs non‐ representative of the level of support received.
Total Accounts Payable – The number of accounts payable transactions processed for each department and fund in a year.
Total Accounts Receivable– The number of accounts receivable processed for each department and fund in a year.
Total Maintenance Space Square Footage– The total maintenance space square footage for each department and fund that is maintained by the Public Buildings Division. Total Salaries & Benefits – The total salary & benefit expenditures for each department and fund for FY 2019‐20.
Utility Billing– An equal allocation to the Water and Sewer Enterprise that receive support from utility billing.
Agenda Item #11.2.
12 Cost Allocation Plan
Allocable Costs and Distribution Bases
Allocable Costs
Table 3 identifies the allocable cost of each central service department for the OMB compliant allocation plan, with the total allocable costs for this study being $4,610,124. The total expenditures from the central service departments were $8,849,593. However, $4,239,469 of the expenditures identified as unallowable by the 200 CFR Part 200 and have been excluded from allocation. The primary exclusions were related to Council, Debt, Transfers, and Capital expenses. The remaining amount was distributed to the operating departments and the central services departments by distribution factor(s) that best represents the functions of each central service department and the demand placed on that central service by all City departments, as previously described in the Methodology section of this report. The allocation methodology for each central service is detailed in the following section of this report.
Table 3: Allocable Cost Summary
Allocable Cost Summary ‐ Central Services Fiscal Year 2019‐2020 Total Cost
Unallocable
Cost Allocable Cost
Summary 8,849,593 $ 4,239,469 $ 4,610,124 $ Central Service
40: Non Departmental 4,304,549 3,099,031 1,205,518
41: Council 410,853 329,162 81,691
42: City Manager 1,533,517 71,400 1,462,117
43: Finance 1,147,836 9,876 1,137,960
44: Attorney 606,000 247,000 359,000
50: Public Buildings 846,838 483,000 363,838
Agenda Item #11.2.
13 Cost Allocation Plan
Central Service Allocation Methodology
The first step of the iterative allocation method is to distribute the allocable costs of the central service departments to other central service departments and operating departments based on the distribution methodology and bases that best represent the activity of the central service, and the functions it serves.
The sections below describe each central service and the methodology used to allocate their costs.
Corresponding tables detailing each distribution are attached in the Appendices as tables A‐1 through A‐3 for the OMB compliant plan and B‐1 for the full cost plan.
Section 1: Non-Departmental
The purpose of the Non‐Departmental categorization is to accumulate those costs not easily associated with a particular cost center and to more easily monitor certain expendable costs for savings and control purposes. Liability insurance, contributions, debt service and general office supplies are types of expenses accounted for here.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of costs of Non‐Departmental, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of total allocable cost for each department and fund
Section 2: City Council
The City Council is the governing body of the City of St. Helena and has the power to make and enforce all laws related to municipal affairs, subject only to the limitations of the City Code and the State Constitution.
The Council is responsible for the formulation of policy, enactment of legislative, control of revenues, and the appropriation of funds.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Council, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of Council agendas for each department and fund
For the OMB plan the costs of the City Council are not allocated to ensure OMB compliance. 40: Non Departmental
Total Allocable Cost 100%
41: Council
Agenda Frequency 100%
Agenda Item #11.2.
14 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 3: City Manager
The City Manager is responsible for providing general administrative management of the City; acting as a liaison between the City Council and Staff; carrying out, on behalf of the City Council, its policies, rules, regulations and laws; overseeing the delivery of public service; reviewing and approving staff reports for Council meetings.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Manager, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of Council agendas for each department and fund
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full‐time equivalents for each department and fund
A Third (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total salaries and benefits for each department and fund
Section 4: Finance
The Finance Department is responsible for providing financial management of all City Funds, grants management and administrating internal service functions for all departments. Major activities include:
maintaining the City's investment program and providing necessary financing for capital needs; preparing management and financial analysis reports; developing the Annual Budget; grant contract review, verification of grant reimbursements and audit closeout; monitoring legislation affecting finances of the City; monitoring the City's risk management needs, and administration of the Business License Ordinance.
Other activities include billing and collection services for City water and sewer utilities, business licenses, parking citations, miscellaneous receivables, and purchasing services.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Finance Department, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of total allocable cost for each department and fund
Ten percent (10%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of accounts receivable transactions for each department and fund
Ten percent (10%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of accounts payable transactions for each department and fund
42: City Manager
Agenda Frequency 33%
FTE's 33%
Salary & Benefits 33%
Agenda Item #11.2.
15 Cost Allocation Plan
Ten percent (10%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full‐time equivalents for each department and fund
Twenty percent (20%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the equal allocation to the Water and Sewer Enterprise that receive support from utility billing Section 5: Attorney
The City of St. Helena contracts with the law firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP for its City Attorney services. Thomas B. Brown, a partner with Burke, is the City Attorney. The City Attorney, who is appointed by the City Council, is responsible for providing legal advice to the City Council and Staff in carrying out the duties of City government. The City Attorney’s duties include framing and reviewing City ordinances, resolutions and agreements, advising on all areas of law affecting the City’s operations, and representing the City in litigation and in the enforcement of City ordinances and State laws affecting the City. The City Attorney’s client is the City of St. Helena, as represented by the City Council and City Manager, and not members of the public.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Attorney, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
Eighty percent (80%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of Council agendas for each department and fund
Twenty percent (20%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full‐time equivalents for each department and fund
43: Finance
Total Allocable Cost 50%
Accounts Receivable 10%
Accounts Payable 10%
FTE's 10%
Utility Billing 20%
44: Attorney
Agenda Frequency 80%
FTE's 20%
Agenda Item #11.2.
16 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 6: Public Buildings
The Government Buildings/ Grounds Division of the Department of Public Works is funded by the General Fund and its budget accounts for the total costs of managing and providing maintenance (plumbing, electrical, carpentry, lock smith work, etc.) and custodial services to City buildings (approximately 65,000 square feet). The Division is also responsible for managing supply orders and deliveries, inspection and maintenance of oil recycling area, handicapped lifts, e‐waste collection and recycling, and fire extinguisher service. This division’s budget includes, utilities, janitorial costs, air conditioning/ heating repairs and maintenance services.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Public Buildings Division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total building square footage of maintenance space maintained by the Public Buildings for each department and fund 50: Public Buildings
Square Footage of Maint. Space 100%
Agenda Item #11.2.
17 Cost Allocation Plan
Iterative Allocation
The total allocable expenditures of each central service department were allocated to other departments (including both operating departments and other central service departments) based on the individual methodologies outlined above in Sections 1 through 6 of the Allocation Percentages chapter. Any cost allocated from central service to central service is then reallocated out using the same methodology. This operation is done iteratively until all allocable cost is received by the operating departments and funds, and none remain with the central services. After completion of the iterative allocation method, a total combined allocable cost of $4,610,124 was distributed to all departments and funds until the allocable cost remained only in the operating departments and funds, and the amount of allocable costs remaining in central service departments was equal to zero.
The full cost plan follows the same methodology with the exception that all costs that were excluded solely for OMB compliance, but were reasonable for the full plan, were made allowable and included in the allocation. See Table B‐1 for additional details for the full cost plan.
After implementing the iterative allocation methodology, all allocable central service costs have been distributed to the operating departments and funds. Table 1 in the Executive Summary of this report summarized the distribution of the total allocable cost of $4,610,124 to each recipient department for the OMB compliant CAP. Table 2 summarized the distribution of the total allocable cost of $5,359,553 to each recipient department for the full cost CAP.
Agenda Item #11.2.
18 Cost Allocation Plan
Appendix A
Appendix A lists the tables detailing the allocation methodology performed in allocating central service costs for the OMB compliant cost allocation plan.
Agenda Item #11.2.
19 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-1: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) Central Service/Operating Departments 40: Non Departmental 41: Council 42: City Manager 43: Finance 44: Attorney 50: Public Buildings 40: Non Departmental 6.0% 0.0% 0.9% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0%41: Council 0.4% 9.0% 3.3% 0.3% 7.2% 0.0%42: City Manager 7.3% 37.6% 17.2% 4.5% 31.1% 2.3%43: Finance 5.7% 14.1% 7.6% 4.7% 11.8% 1.1%44: Attorney 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0%50: Public Buildings 1.8% 0.0% 0.2% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%45: Planning/Building 7.2% 10.0% 8.1% 7.0% 9.2% 2.7%46: Library 5.1% 2.4% 5.6% 3.8% 3.5% 26.7%47: Parks & Recreation 1.4% 1.0% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0% 19.9%48: Fire 7.1% 1.0% 6.9% 5.7% 3.1% 28.5%49: Police 16.5% 3.4% 17.1% 13.8% 7.2% 9.9%50: Public Works 8.3% 11.7% 10.4% 6.6% 11.6% 9.0%283: Tree City USA 0.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%286: Bocce Ball Enterprise 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%289: Recreation Programs 2.5% 0.0% 2.3% 2.1% 0.8% 0.0%380: Friends and Foundation 0.7% 0.0% 0.9% 1.0% 0.4% 0.0%561: Water Enterprise 19.3% 5.9% 10.9% 24.9% 7.9% 0.0%571: Sewer Enterprise 8.0% 3.8% 6.9% 17.6% 4.9% 0.0% Central Service Departments
Agenda Item #11.2.
20 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-2: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) Central Service/Operating Departments 40: Non Departmental 41: Council 42: City Manager 43: Finance 44: Attorney 50: Public Buildings 40: Non Departmental 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%41: Council 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%42: City Manager 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%43: Finance 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%44: Attorney 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%50: Public Buildings 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%45: Planning/Building 9.5% 17.0% 11.4% 8.6% 15.0% 3.1%46: Library 7.0% 6.6% 7.7% 5.1% 7.0% 26.9%47: Parks & Recreation 2.1% 2.1% 1.8% 1.6% 2.0% 19.9%48: Fire 9.4% 6.1% 9.4% 7.3% 7.3% 28.8%49: Police 21.0% 15.9% 23.1% 16.8% 17.5% 10.6%50: Public Works 11.1% 20.1% 14.3% 8.4% 18.5% 9.4%283: Tree City USA 0.7% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0%286: Bocce Ball Enterprise 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0%289: Recreation Programs 3.1% 1.7% 3.1% 2.5% 2.2% 0.1%380: Friends and Foundation 0.9% 0.7% 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0.0%561: Water Enterprise 24.0% 17.7% 16.7% 28.1% 17.6% 0.7%571: Sewer Enterprise 10.8% 11.6% 10.7% 19.6% 11.4% 0.4% Central Service Departments
Agenda Item #11.2.
21 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-3: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP) Department Classification Department 40: Non Departmental 41: Council 42: City Manager 43: Finance 44: Attorney 50: Public Buildings Total Allocation 1,205,518 81,691 1,462,117 1,137,960 359,000 363,838 4,610,124 Central Service 40: Non Departmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Service 41: Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Service 42: City Manager 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Service 43: Finance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Service 44: Attorney 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Service 50: Public Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating Department 45: Planning/Building 114,137 13,891 166,118 97,336 53,802 11,267 456,551 Operating Department 46: Library 84,800 5,405 57,852 112,436 25,095 97,803 383,390 Operating Department 47: Parks & Recreation 25,551 1,754 26,801 18,604 7,088 72,564 152,362 Operating Department 48: Fire 113,265 5,015 82,586 137,236 26,248 104,861 469,211 Operating Department 49: Police 253,366 13,009 337,150 62,730 191,680 38,558 896,491 Operating Department 50: Public Works 133,796 16,405 208,800 95,764 66,499 34,102 555,367 Operating Department 283: Tree City USA 8,333 108 2,387 4,776 482 30 16,116 Operating Department 286: Bocce Ball Enterprise 5,227 221 7,580 4,162 1,287 57 18,535 Operating Department 289: Recreation Programs 36,861 1,361 45,248 28,413 7,907 351 120,141 Operating Department 380: Friends and Foundation 10,937 565 18,026 13,355 3,627 147 46,656 Operating Department 561: Water Enterprise 288,926 14,473 244,549 63,358 320,305 2,464 934,075 Operating Department 571: Sewer Enterprise 130,319 9,485 155,786 40,876 223,128 1,635 561,229 Central Service Departments
Agenda Item #11.2.
22 Cost Allocation Plan
Appendix B
Appendix B provides the table detailing the allocation performed in allocating central service costs for the full cost allocation plan. The methodology for the full plan is the same as for the OMB compliant plan, as it is the most reasonable and represents how indirect support is provided in the City. The difference between the two plans, as has been described in this report, is in the costs that can be allocated.
Agenda Item #11.2.
23 Cost Allocation Plan
Table B-1: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP)
Department Classification Department 40: Non Departmental 41: Council 42: City Manager 43: Finance 44: Attorney 50: Public Buildings Total Allocation 1,576,785 409,853 1,512,117 1,137,960 359,000 363,838 5,359,553 Central Service 40: Non Departmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Service 41: Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Service 42: City Manager 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Service 43: Finance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Service 44: Attorney 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Service 50: Public Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating Department 45: Planning/Building 149,288 69,692 171,799 97,336 53,802 11,267 553,184 Operating Department 46: Library 110,916 27,116 116,281 57,852 25,095 97,803 435,062 Operating Department 47: Parks & Recreation 33,421 8,800 27,717 18,604 7,088 72,564 168,194 Operating Department 48: Fire 148,148 25,160 141,929 82,586 26,248 104,861 528,931 Operating Department 49: Police 331,396 65,267 348,679 191,680 62,730 38,558 1,038,309 Operating Department 50: Public Works 175,002 82,306 215,940 95,764 66,499 34,102 669,614 Operating Department 283: Tree City USA 10,899 543 2,469 4,776 482 30 19,199 Operating Department 286: Bocce Ball Enterprise 6,837 1,110 7,839 4,162 1,287 57 21,293 Operating Department 289: Recreation Programs 48,214 6,826 46,796 28,413 7,907 351 138,506 Operating Department 380: Friends and Foundation 14,305 2,833 18,643 13,355 3,627 147 52,909 Operating Department 561: Water Enterprise 377,907 72,611 252,912 320,305 63,358 2,464 1,089,558 Operating Department 571: Sewer Enterprise 170,454 47,588 161,114 223,128 40,876 1,635 644,794 Central Service Departments
Agenda Item #11.2.
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, California 92590-4856
800.755.6864 | 951.587.3500 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, California 92590‐4856
800.755.6864 | Fax: 888.326.6864
951.587.3500 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com
Agenda Item #11.2.
CITY OF ST HELENA
User Fee Study Report
April 2019
User Fee Study
Agenda Item #11.2.
i Comprehensive User Fee Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. i Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1 User Fee Background ........................................................................................................................... 2 Background .................................................................................................................................................. 2 California User Fee History .......................................................................................................................... 2 Additional Policy Considerations ................................................................................................................. 3 Study Objective ................................................................................................................................... 4 Scope of the Study ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Aim of the Report......................................................................................................................................... 5 Project Approach and Methodology ..................................................................................................... 6 Conceptual Approach................................................................................................................................... 6 Fully Burdened Hourly Rates........................................................................................................................ 6 Summary Steps of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 7 Allowable Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Quality Control/Quality Assurance .............................................................................................................. 8 Reasons for cost increases/decreases over current fees............................................................................. 9 City Staff Contributions ................................................................................................................................ 9 St Helena User Fees............................................................................................................................ 10 Cost Recovery............................................................................................................................................. 10 Subsidization .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Impact on Demand (Elasticity) ................................................................................................................... 11 Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 11 General City ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Planning ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Building ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Public Works ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Agenda Item #11.2.
ii Comprehensive User Fee Study
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 Library ............................................................................................................................................... 16 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Parks & Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 17 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Police ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 18 Fire .................................................................................................................................................... 19 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered ........................................................................... 20 Appendix B – Fully Burdened Hourly Rates ......................................................................................... 21 Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis .................................................................................................. 23 Agenda Item #11.2.
1 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Executive Summary
The City of St Helena engaged Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to determine the full costs incurred by the City to support the various activities for which the City charges user fees. Due to the complexity and the breadth of performing a comprehensive review of fees, Willdan employed a variety of fee methodologies to identify the full costs of individual fee and program activities. This report and the appendices herein identifies 100% full cost recovery for City services and the recommended level of recovery as determined through discussion with departmental staff.
The reality of the local government fee environment is that significant increases to achieve 100% cost recovery can often not be feasible, desirable, or appropriate depending on policy direction —particularly in a single year. The recommended fees identified herein are either at or less than full cost recovery.
Agenda Item #11.2.
2 Comprehensive User Fee Study
User Fee Background
Background
As part of a general cost recovery strategy, local governments adopt user fees to fund programs and services that provide limited or no direct benefit to the community as a whole. As cities struggle to maintain levels of service and variability of demand, they have become increasingly aware of subsidies provided by the General Fund and have implemented cost-recovery targets. To the extent that governments use general tax monies to provide individuals with private benefits, and not require them to pay the full cost of the service (and, therefore, receive a subsidy), the government is limiting funds that may be available to provide other community-wide benefits. In effect, the government is using community funds to pay for private benefit. Unlike most revenue sources, cities have more control over the level of user fees they charge to recover costs, or the subsidies they can institute.
Fees in California are required to conform to the statutory requirements of the California Constitution, Proposition 218, and the California Code of Regulations. The Code also requires that the City Council adopt fees by either ordinance or resolution, and that any fees in excess of the estimated total cost of rendering the related services must be approved by a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting because the charge would be considered a tax and not a fee.
California User Fee History
Before Proposition 13, California cities were less concerned with potential subsidies and recovering the cost of their services from individual fee payers. In times of fiscal shortages, cities simply raised property taxes, which funded everything from police and recreation to development-related services. However, this situation changed with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.
Proposition 13 established the era of revenue limitation in California local government. In subsequent years, the state saw a series of additional limitations to local government revenues. Proposition 4 (1979) defined the difference between a tax and a fee: a fee can be no greater than the cost of providing the service; and Proposition 218 (1996) further limited the imposition of taxes for certain classes of fees. As a result, cities were required to secure a supermajority vote in order to enact or increase taxes. Since the public continues to resist efforts to raise local government taxes, cities have little control and very few successful options for new revenues. Compounding this limitation, the State of California took a series of actions in the 1990’s and 2000’s to improve the State’s fiscal situation—at the expense of local governments. As an example, in 2004-05, the Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (“ERAF”) take-away of property taxes and the reduction of Vehicle License Fees have severely reduced local tax revenues.
In addition, on November 2, 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, the “Stop Hidden Taxes Initiative”, which is aimed at defining “regulatory fees” as a special tax rather than a fee, thus requiring approval by two-thirds vote of local voters. These regulatory fees are typically intended to mitigate the societal and environmental impacts of a business or person’s activities. Proposition 26 contains seven categories of exceptions. The vast majority of fees that cities would seek to adopt will most likely fall into one or more of these exemptions.
Agenda Item #11.2.
3 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Additional Policy Considerations
The recent trend for municipalities is to update their fee schedules to reflect the actual costs of certain public services primarily benefiting users. User Fees recover costs associated with the provision of specific services benefiting the user, thereby reducing the use of General Fund monies for such purposes.
In addition to collecting the direct cost of labor and materials associated with processing and administering user services, it is common for local governments to recover support costs. Support costs are those costs relating to a local government’s central service departments that are properly allocable to the local government’s operating departments. Central services support cost allocations were incorporated using the resulting indirect overhead percentages determined through the Cost Allocation Plan. This plan was developed prior to the User Fee study to determine the burden placed upon central services by the operating departments in order to allocate a proportionate share of central service cost.
As labor effort and costs associated with the provision of services fluctuate over time, a significant element in the development of any fee schedule is that it has the flexibility to remain current. Therefore, it is recommended that the City include an inflationary factor in the resolution adopting the fee schedule to allow the City Council, by resolution, to annually increase or decrease the fees.
The City may employ many different inflationary factors. The most commonly used inflator is some form of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as it is widely well known and accepted. A similar inflator is the implicit price deflator for GDP, which is much like the CPI except that while the CPI is based on the same “basket” of goods and services every year, the price deflators’ “basket” can change year to year. Since the primary factor for the cost of a City’s services is usually the costs of the personnel involved, tying an inflationary factor that connects more directly to the personnel costs can be suitable if there is a clear method, or current practice of obtaining said factor.
Each City should use an inflator that they believe works the best for their specific situation and needs. It is also recommended that the City perform this internal review annually with a comprehensive review of services and fees performed every three to five years, which would include adding or removing fees for any new or eliminated programs/services.
Agenda Item #11.2.
4 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Study Objective
As the City of St Helena seeks to efficiently manage limited resources and adequately respond to increased service demands, it needs a variety of tools. These tools provide assurance that the City has the best information and the best resources available to make sound decisions, fairly and legitimately set fees, maintain compliance with state law and local policies, and meet the needs of the City administration and its constituency. Given the limitations on raising revenue in local government, the City recognizes that a User Fee Study is a very cost-effective way to understand the total cost of services and identify potential fee deficiencies. Essentially, a User Fee is a payment for a requested service provided by a local government that primarily benefits an individual or group.
The total cost of each service included in this analysis is based on the full cost of providing City services, including direct salaries and benefits of City staff, direct departmental costs, and indirect costs from central service support. This study determines the full cost recovery fee for the City to provide each service; however, each fee is set at the City’s discretion, up to 100% of the total cost, as specified in this report.
The principle goal of the study was to help the City determine the full cost of the services that the City provides. In addition, Willdan established a series of additional objectives including:
Developing a rational basis for setting fees
Identifying subsidy amount, if applicable, of each fee in the model Enhancing fairness and equity
Ensuring compliance with State law
Developing an updatable and comprehensive list of fees Maintaining accordance with City policies and goals
The study results will help the City better understand its true costs of providing services and may serve as a basis for making informed policy decisions regarding the most appropriate fees, if any, to collect from individuals and organizations that require individualized services from the City.
Scope of the Study
The scope of this study encompasses a review and calculation of the user fees charged by the following St Helena departments and fee groups:
General City
Planning
Building
Public Works
Library
Parks & Recreation
Police
Fire
Agenda Item #11.2.
5 Comprehensive User Fee Study
The study involved the identification of existing and potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, and calculation of individual service costs (fees) or program cost recovery levels.
Aim of the Report
The User Fee Study focused on the cost of City services, as City staff currently provides them at existing, known, or reasonably anticipated service and staff levels. This report provides a summary of the study results, and a general description of the approach and methods Willdan and City staff used to determine the recommended fee schedule. The report is not intended to document all of the numerous discussions throughout the process, nor is it intended to provide influential dissertation on the qualities of the utilized tools, techniques, or other approaches.
Agenda Item #11.2.
6 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Project Approach and Methodology
Conceptual Approach
The basic concept of a User Fee Study is to determine the “reasonable cost” of each service provided by the City for which it charges a user fee. The full cost of providing a service may not necessarily become the City’s fee, but it serves as the objective basis as to the maximum amount that may be collected.
The standard fee limitation established in California law for property-related (non-discretionary) fees is the “estimated, reasonable cost” principle. In order to maintain compliance with the letter and spirit of this standard, every component of the fee study process included a related review. The use of budget figures, time estimates, and improvement valuation clearly indicates reliance upon estimates for some data.
Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
The total cost of each service included in this analysis is primarily based on the Fully Burdened Hourly Rates (FBHRs) that were determined for City personnel directly involved in providing services. The FBHRs include not only personnel salary and benefits, but also any costs that are reasonably ascribable to personnel. The cost elements that are included in the calculation of fully burdened rates are:
Salaries & benefits of personnel involved
Operating costs applicable to fee operations
Departmental support, supervision, and administration overhead Internal Service Costs charged to each department
Indirect City-wide overhead costs calculated through the Cost Allocation Plan An important factor in determining the fully burdened rate is in the calculation of productive hours for personnel. This calculation takes the available workable hours in a year of 2,080 and adjusts this figure to account for calculated or anticipated hours’ employees are involved in non-billable activities such as paid vacation, sick leave, emergency leave, holidays, and other considerations as necessary. Dividing the full cost by the number of productive hours provides the FBHR.
The FBHRs are then used in conjunction with time estimates, when appropriate, to calculate a fees' cost based on the personnel and the amount of their time that is involved in providing each service.
Agenda Item #11.2.
7 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Summary Steps of the Study
The methodology to evaluate most User Fee levels is straightforward and simple in concept. The following list provides a summary of the study process steps:
Allowable Costs
This report identifies three types of costs that, when combined, constitute the fully burdened cost of a service (Appendix A). Costs are defined as
direct labor, including salary and benefits,
departmental overhead costs, and the City’s
central services overhead, where
departmental and central service overhead
costs constitute support costs. These cost
types are defined as follows:
Direct Labor (Personnel Costs): The
costs related to staff salaries for
time spent directly on fee-related
services.
Departmental Overhead: A
proportional allocation of
departmental overhead costs,
including operation costs such as
supplies and materials that are necessary for the department to function. Central Services Overhead: These costs, detailed in the City’s Cost Allocation Plan, represent services provided by those Central Services Departments whose primary function is to support other City departments.
Data Analysis
Department Interviews
Time Estimates
Labor Costs
Cost Allocation Plan
Building Cost Layers
Direct Services
Indirect Services
Department Overhead
City-Wide Overhead
Set Fees
Define the Full Cost of
Services
Set Cost Recovery Policy
Agenda Item #11.2.
8 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Methodology
The three methods of analysis for calculating fees used in this report are the:
Case Study Method (Standard Unit Cost Build-Up Approach): This approach estimates the actual labor and material costs associated with providing a unit of service to a single user. This analysis is suitable when City staff time requirements do not vary dramatically for a service, or for special projects where the time and cost requirements are easy to identify at the project’s outset. Further, the method is effective in instances when a staff member from one department assists on an application, service or permit for another department on an as-needed basis. Costs are estimated based upon interviews with City staff regarding the time typically spent on tasks, a review of available records, and a time and materials analysis.
Programmatic Approach: In some instances, the underlying data is not available or varies widely, leaving a standard unit cost build-up approach impractical. In addition, market factors and policy concerns (as opposed to actual costs) tend to influence fee levels more than other types of services. Willdan employed a different methodology where appropriate to fit the programs’ needs and goals. Typical programmatic approach cases are facility use fees, penalties, and instances where a program cost is divided over the user base to obtain a per applicant cost for shared cost services.
Valuation Based Fees: This manner of collection is used when the valuation of the improvement can be used as a proxy for the amount of effort it would take for City staff to complete the service provided. More specifically, this approach is commonly used for certain User Fees in the Building Division. It is generally accepted that as a project’s size scales up, the cost of the project increases, and the amount of effort needed to review and inspect also increases. Using a valuation-based fees provides for a system that can adjust as project sizes scale. Land is not included in the valuation.
Quality Control/Quality Assurance
All study components are interrelated, thus flawed data at any step in the process will cause the ultimate results to be inconsistent and unsound. The elements of our Quality Control process for User Fee calculations include:
Involvement of knowledgeable City staff
Clear instructions and guidance to City staff
Reasonableness tests and validation
Normalcy/expectation ranges
FTE balancing
Internal and external reviews
Cross-checking
Agenda Item #11.2.
9 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Reasons for cost increases/decreases over current fees
Within the fee tables in Appendix C, the differences are identified between the full costs calculated through the study and the fee levels currently in effect. The reasons for differences between the two can arise from a number of possible factors including:
Previous fee levels may have been set at levels less than full cost intentionally, based on policy decisions
Staffing levels and the positions that complete fee and service activity may vary from when the previous costs were calculated
Personnel and materials costs could have increased at levels that differed from any inflationary factors used to increase fees since the last study
Costs that this study has identified as part of the full cost of services may not have been accounted for in a previous study
o Departmental overhead and administration costs
o Indirect overhead from the Cost Allocation Plan
Changes in processes and procedures within a department, or the City as a whole City Staff Contributions
As part of the study process, Willdan received tremendous support and cooperation from City staff, which contributed and reviewed a variety of components to the study, including:
Budget and other cost data
Staffing structures
Fee and service structures, organization, and descriptions Direct and indirect work hours (billable/non-billable) Time estimates to complete work tasks
Frequency and current fee levels
Review of draft results and other documentation
A User Fee Study requires significant involvement of the managers and line staff from the departments— on top of their existing workloads and competing priorities. The contributions from City staff were critical to this study. We would like to express our appreciation to the City and its staff for their assistance, professionalism, positive attitudes, helpful suggestions, responsiveness, and overall cooperation.
Agenda Item #11.2.
10 Comprehensive User Fee Study
St Helena User Fees
Cost Recovery
The cost recovery models, by department/division fee type, are presented in detail in Appendix C. Full cost recovery is determined by summing the estimated amount of time each position (in increments of minutes or hours) spends to render a service. Time estimates for each service rendered were predominately determined by Willdan and City Staff through a time and materials survey conducted for each department/division fee included in the study. The resulting cost recovery amount represents the total cost of providing each service. The City’s current fee being charged for each service, if applicable, is provided in this section, as well, for reference.
It is important to note that the time and materials survey used to determine the amount of time each employee spends assisting in the provision of the services listed on the fee schedule is essential in identifying the total cost of providing each service. Specifically, in providing services, a number of employees are often involved in various aspects of the process, spending anywhere from a few minutes to several hours on the service.
The principle goal of this study was to identify the cost of City services, to provide information to help the City make informed decisions regarding the actual fee levels and charges. The responsibility to determine the final fee levels is a complicated task. City staff must consider many issues in formulating recommendations, and the City Council must consider those same issues and more in making the final decisions.
City staff assumes the responsibility to develop specific fee level recommendations to present to the City Council. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules to guide the City, since many of the considerations are based on the unique characteristics of the City of St Helena, and administrative and political discretion.
However, in setting the level of full cost recovery for each fee, one should consider whether the service solely benefits one end user or the general community.
Subsidization
Recalling the definition of a user fee helps guide decisions regarding subsidization. The general standard is that individuals (or groups) whom receive a wholly private benefit should pay 100% of the full cost of the services. In contrast, services that are simply public benefit should be funded entirely by the general fund’s tax dollars. Unfortunately, for the decision makers, many services fall into the range between these two extremes. The graphic on the following page illustrates the potential decision basis.
Further complicating the decision, opponents of fees often assert that the activities subject to the fees provide economic, cultural, “quality of life,” or other community benefits that exceed the costs to the City.
It is recommended the City consider such factors during its deliberations regarding appropriate fee levels.
Of course, subsidization can be an effective public policy tool, since it can be used to reduce fees to encourage certain activities (such as compliance inspections to ensure public safety) or allow some people to be able to afford to receive services they otherwise could not at the full cost. In addition, subsidies can Agenda Item #11.2.
11 Comprehensive User Fee Study
be an appropriate and justifiable action, such as to allow citizens to rightfully access services, without burdensome costs.
Despite the intent, it is important for the City and public to understand that subsidies must be covered by another revenue source, such as the General Fund. Therefore, the general taxpayer will potentially help to fund private benefits, and/or other City services will not receive funds that are otherwise directed to cover subsidies.
Impact on Demand (Elasticity)
Economic principles of elasticity suggest that increased costs for services (higher fees) will eventually curtail the demand for the services; whereas lower fees may spark an incentive to utilize the services and encourage certain actions. Either of these conditions may be a desirable effect to the City. However, the level of the fees that would cause demand changes is largely unknown. The Cost of Service Study did not attempt to evaluate the economic or behavioral impacts of higher or lower fees; nevertheless, the City should consider the potential impacts of these issues when deciding on fee levels.
Summary
If the City’s principal goal of this study were to maximize revenues from user fees, Willdan would recommend setting user fees at 100% of the full cost identified in this study. However, we understand that revenue enhancement is not the only goal of a cost of service study, and sometimes full-cost recovery is not needed, desired, or appropriate. Other City and departmental goals, City Council priorities, policy initiatives, past experience, implementation issues, and other internal and external factors may influence staff recommendations and City Council decisions. In this case, the proper identification of additional services (new or existing services) and creation of a consistent and comprehensive fee schedule was the primary objective of this study. City staff has reviewed the full costs and identified the “recommended fee levels” for consideration by City Council. The attached appendices exhibit these unit fees individually.
The preceding sections provide background for each department or division and the results of this study’s analysis of their fees. For the full list of each fee’s analysis, refer to Appendix C of this report.
Agenda Item #11.2.
12 Comprehensive User Fee Study
General City
The fee group of General City contains services related to business licenses, copy services, and film permits.
Business license services were not analyzed as part of this study.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the General City. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of the General City services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services.
Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. It is recommended that the City set these fees at or near 100% cost recovery for most fees as detailed in Appendix C:
an increase to 4 fees;
2 fees would decrease;
2 fees will change from flat fee to printing costs plus admin%; 42 fees would remain as currently set, and;
1 new fee will be added.
Agenda Item #11.2.
13 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Planning
The core services provided by the Planning and Community Improvement Department are: implementation, enforcement and updates related to the City’s General Plan, City Zoning and Building Codes. The overarching goal is to maintain and improve the quality of the community and environment. Additionally, this department reviews project plans for consistency with local, state, and federal laws as well as actions taken by the City Council and Planning Commission. The department provides planning and development review services, environmental review to ensure compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, serves as the City’s Housing Administrator, building permit plan check and field inspection, and Code Enforcement, including Short Term Rental enforcement.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Planning Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of Planning Services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. Many fees also contain a deposit aspect to allow for more precise accounting of costs on a project by project basis. This fee format allows for the establishment of flat fee amounts for aspects of services that do not vary greatly and utilizes deposits for service aspects that do vary. Deposits are set at reasonable levels based on staff experience. The analysis found that there are services whose current fees are currently set above and below the full cost of providing service. It is recommended that the City set most Planning Services fees at or near 100% cost recovery for most fees as detailed in Appendix C, with some specific fees set to retain subsidies. As a result, there would be:
an increase to 29 fees;
1 fee would decrease;
2 new fees will be added;
14 fees would remain as currently set, and;
the average estimated fee increase for Planning would be at around 15% for flat fee services.
Agenda Item #11.2.
14 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Building
Building Department provides the community with a full-time staff available to accept building permit submittals. Department Services also include plan checking, inspections, product and code compliance, code interpretation, and code enforcement.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Building Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of Building services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach (except for fees related to the Building Permit), whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. It is recommended that the City increase cost recovery for Building services to the levels shown for each fee as detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
an increase to 13 fees;
10 fees would decrease;
62 fees would remain as currently set, and;
10 new fees would be added as detailed in Appendix C.
In addition to the above referenced fees listed under Building, the Building Permit fees are also provided by this division. For the Building Permit fees, valuation is used as a proxy for measuring the amount of effort needed to provide services on a case by case basis. This method is an industry standard widely used by other jurisdictions to evaluate the cost of providing service. It is generally understood that the larger and more complex a project is, more time and effort that is required to provide the service. Project valuation also follows that trend, and so by using a combination of either project valuation or historical revenue figures along with a multiplier or cost recovery analysis for historical and anticipated future trends, current cost recovery along with variability in charges due to project type and scale is determined. The result of the cost analysis completed for the Building Permit program found that the program is currently operating at
52.4% cost recovery. It is suggested that the fees be increased to raise cost recovery to 78.6%, which would require a 50% increase. Current and new fees are detailed in Appendix C.
Agenda Item #11.2.
15 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Public Works
The Department of Public Works is responsible for the City's infrastructure, including streets, storm drains, parks, water treatment, water distribution, wastewater collection, and wastewater treatment. We facilitate environmental compliance including storm water pollution prevention, sustainability, protection of public trees and floodplain administration. In addition, the Department of Public Works is a key responding agency in emergencies involving our infrastructure as well as weather and other disasters with the potential for adverse impacts to public health or the environment.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Public Works Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of services in Public Works relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services.
Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis showed that current services are being provided well below the cost of providing them. Suggested fee levels were determined to increase cost recovery while trying to mitigate the impact on demand. As a result, there would be:
an increase to 36 fees;
3 fees would decrease;
13 new fees will be added, and;
6 fees would remain as currently set as detailed in Appendix C.
Agenda Item #11.2.
16 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Library
The St Helena Public Library is recognized as one of the best libraries in the country, a resource for people in their daily lives as they grow, learn, and challenge themselves at every stage of life and personal development. The library strives to provide resources, space, and opportunities for civic engagement, as well as, gateways to education, learning experiences, and enrichment. The goal is to maintain and continue to achieve the best in library services by managing the resources wisely, preparing for the future, and being responsive to the changing landscape of the community they serve.
Analysis
No analysis was done to the Library services and fee levels remain unchanged as detailed in Appendix C.
Agenda Item #11.2.
17 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Parks & Recreation
The Parks & Recreation Department provides programs in youth and adult sports, community classes and events, youth programs, after-school and educational programs, summer camps, and special events, such as the 4th of July Firework Show and the St. Helena Hometown Harvest Festival. City recreation facilities include the Carnegie Building, Crane Park, the Skate Park, tennis courts, bocce courts, Jacob Meily Park and Wappo Park.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Parks & Recreation Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of most Parks & Recreation programs encompassed facility rentals and other recreation services. The fee for use for government owned facilities and property can be set discretionally by the City.
The cost of acquisition, maintenance, repair, and upgrade to the City and subsequently the community is offset through rental or use fees. As such these fees should be set using the knowledge of activity use for the facilities, policy desires of the City, and market factors when desirable. It is generally accepted that some Parks & Recreation programs provide a measure of public benefit to the residents and City as a whole.
In addition, cities generally want to ensure that their programs and services remain affordable to the community at large, and that the programs remain competitive with surrounding jurisdictions. The suggested fees would result in:
An increase for 6 fees;
6 fees would decrease;
28 new fees will be added, and;
9 fees would remain as currently set as detailed in Appendix C.
Agenda Item #11.2.
18 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Police
The Police Department is responsible for protection of life and property, the maintenance of order, the control and prevention of crime, and the enforcement of vehicle laws and regulations. The department is to carry out its responsibilities in a prudent and fair manner respecting individual dignity regardless of age, sex, social status, ethnic group or creed. The Police Department, in its ongoing effort to alleviate crime problems in St. Helena, will be flexible and innovative in attempts to find superior methods of serving the populace.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Police Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
The services included in Police are a mixture of fines and user fees. The fines are set to deter the listed activities, and the analysis of the user fees relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services.
Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. As a result, there would be:
An increase to 9 fees;
55 fees would remain as currently set;
3 fees would decrease, and;
The average fee change would be 5%as detailed in Appendix C.
Agenda Item #11.2.
19 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Fire
It is the mission of the members of the St. Helena Fire Department to provide efficient and cost effective services, including: fire protection both prevention and suppression; public life safety education; emergency medical and rescue services; respond to natural and man-made disasters; and respond to incidents involving hazardous materials. This service should, at all times, provide for the safety of the members of the Fire Department and serve the interest of the residents of the City of St. Helena and the surrounding area.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Fire Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of Fire services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. It is recommended that the City set Fire fees at or near 100% cost recovery for most fees. As a result, there would be:
an increase to 1 fee;
4 fees would decrease;
3 fees would remain as currently set as, and;
2 new fees will be added as detailed in Appendix C.
Agenda Item #11.2.
20 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered
Below are the total allowable costs that may be recovered through User Fees; however, only a percentage of the total cost is realized as staff doesn’t just work on services related to User Fees, but also works on an array of other City functions during the operational hours of the City. The amounts listed below will not reconcile to City budgets as costs that should not be included in overhead for personnel in the application of determining fully burdened hourly rates were excluded. Examples of these costs are capital, debt, monetary transfers, passthrough contract costs, and any other costs that is charged directly to the service requestor.
City of St Helena- User Fee
Overhead Rate Calculations
Department
Salaries &
Benefits
Maintenance &
Operations
Direct
Overhead
%
Indirect
Allocation
%
42: City Manager 351,854 1,398,142 25% 0%
43: Finance 378,329 751,003 50% 0%
45: Planning/Building 501,558 997,118 50% 38%
46: Library 229,500 773,363 30% 42%
47: Parks & Recreation 478,636 630,463 76% 62%
48: Fire 338,554 2,182,784 16% 37%
49: Police 190,529 3,905,343 5% 31%
50: Public Works 1,374,081 1,653,718 83% 40%
Agenda Item #11.2.
21 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix B – Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
Below are fully burdened hourly rates of staff positions that provide for the services detailed in Appendix C. The FBHRs were used to determine the full cost of each service. They include the salary and benefit costs for each position as well as all applicable overhead amounts for each position. For positions in central service departments, such as the City Clerk and Finance, what is shown is the salary and benefit rate only, as the overhead of central service departments is recovered through the cost allocation plan. When a central service department position works on a fee or project in the purview of an operating department, the overhead rates of the operating department (shown in Appendix A) will be applied to that central service positions’ salary and benefit rate for full cost recovery. For any user fee service request that is outside the scope of the fees detailed in Appendix C, or for services for which there is no fee currently set, the City can charge up to the full cost of the FBHR for personnel involved.
City of St Helena- User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department Position
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
Position Rates
42: City Manager CM - Administrative Analyst $121.66
42: City Manager CM - Assistant City Manager $230.42
42: City Manager CM - Assistant to the City Manager $163.35 42: City Manager CM - City Clerk $162.76
42: City Manager CM - City Manager $247.25
42: City Manager CM - Human Resources Analyst $122.85
43: Finance Finance - Accounting Technician I $116.57
43: Finance Finance - Administrative Services Director $246.42 43: Finance Finance - Finance Manager $220.12
43: Finance Finance - Office Assistant $103.03
43: Finance Finance - Senior Accounting Technician $131.32 43: Finance Finance - Senior Management Analyst $177.45 48: Fire Fire - Fire Captain $185.86
48: Fire Fire - Fire Chief $289.57
48: Fire Fire - Fire Engineer $185.70
48: Fire Fire - Fire Inspector $152.10
46: Library Library - Librarian I $153.18
46: Library Library - Library Associate II $131.38
46: Library Library - Library Director $286.16
46: Library Library - Senior Librarian $167.91
47: Parks & Recreation Parks & Rec - Parks & Recreation Director $439.02 47: Parks & Recreation Parks & Rec - Recreation Supervisor $257.10 Agenda Item #11.2.
22 Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of St Helena- User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department Position
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
Position Rates
45: Planning/Building Plng/Bldg - Chief Building Official $286.60 45: Planning/Building Plng/Bldg - Community Development Director $363.56 45: Planning/Building Plng/Bldg - Permit Technician I $155.54 45: Planning/Building Plng/Bldg - Permit Technician III $187.70 45: Planning/Building Plng/Bldg - Senior Planner $263.69 49: Police Police - CSO/Dispatcher $119.35
49: Police Police - Dispatch Supervisor $144.79
49: Police Police - Dispatcher $117.34
49: Police Police - Lieutenant $213.92
49: Police Police - Police Chief $288.11
49: Police Police - Police Officer $159.58
49: Police Police - Sergeant $205.76
50: Public Works PW - Administrative Assistant $192.39
50: Public Works PW - Assistant Operations Manager $322.01 50: Public Works PW - Assistant PW Director $370.78
50: Public Works PW - Chief Plant Operator $301.33
50: Public Works PW - Engineering Technician $208.78
50: Public Works PW - Environmental Services Technician $209.89 50: Public Works PW - Lead Maintenance Worker $229.42
50: Public Works PW - Maintenance Worker I $182.45
50: Public Works PW - Maintenance Worker I $182.45
50: Public Works PW - Maintenance Worker II $207.61
50: Public Works PW - Operations Manager $325.33
50: Public Works PW - Plant Operator I $224.78
50: Public Works PW - Plant Operator II $241.07
50: Public Works PW - Project Manager $325.33
50: Public Works PW - Public Works Director $451.85
50: Public Works PW - Superintendent $247.46
Agenda Item #11.2.
23 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis
The following tables provide the results of the analysis, resulting full cost recovery amount, and recommended fees. For fees in which the full cost, existing fee and suggested fee is listed as “NA”, the amount or percentage was not calculable based on cost data or variable fee structure. This is most common when either the current or the suggested fee includes a variable component that is not comparable on a one to one basis, a full cost was not calculated (for penalties and fines), or when there is not a current fee amount to compare against.
Agenda Item #11.2.
General City
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ1 Business License Fees are variable depending on business type and structure NA NA NA NA2 Business License - Contractors 100.00 Plus $4 State Fee plus $7 per each employee working inside City limits NA NA $100.00 $03 Returned Check Fee - Admin 21.00 California Code, Civil Code 1719: $25 1st check, $35 each subsequent check NA NA $25.00 $44 Returned Check Fee - Police 30.00 California Code, Civil Code 1719 NA NA $25.00 -$55 Copies of Documents - Black & White 0.15 per page $0.25 0% $0.25 $06 Copies of Documents - Color New $0.35 0% $0.35 NA7 Annual Budget 30.00 NA NA Printing Costs + 20% NA8 Annual Financial Reports 25.00 NA NA Printing Costs + 20% NA9 General Plan Printing Fee Printing Costs + 20% NA NA Printing Costs + 20% $010 Zoning Ordinance Printing Fee Printing Costs + 20% NA NA Printing Costs + 20% $011 General Plan Map Printing Fee Printing Costs + 20% NA NA Printing Costs + 20% $012 Subdivision Ordinance Printing Fees Printing Costs + 20% NA NA Printing Costs + 20% $013 CD of Meeting 50.00 $43.52 13% $38.00 -$1214 Late Charges on City Invoices 1% per month NA NA 1% $015 Film Permits16 Film Permit Application 500.00 $651.04 13% $565.00 $6517 Refundable Deposit up to $10,000 NA NA up to $10,000 $018 Use of City Hall 500.00 per day NA NA $500.00 $019 Use of Fire Station 500.00 per day NA NA $500.00 $020 Use of the Carnegie Building 500.00 per day NA NA $500.00 $021 Use of the Police Station 500.00 per day NA NA $500.00 $022 Use of Main Street 5,000.00 per day NA NA $5,000.00 $023 Use of City Park 20.00 per day NA NA $20.00 $024 Use of Public Parking 30.00 per space per day NA NA $30.00 $025 Use of Streets in the Central Business District 1,000.00 per day NA NA $1,000.00 $026 Use of any other Streets 500.00 per day NA NA $500.00 $027 Barricading 50.00 per location $182.45 62% $70.00 $2028 Public Works Services Hourly Rate NA NA Hourly Rate $029 Police Services Hourly Rate NA NA Hourly Rate $030 Building Plan Copies - Paper Size31 9X12 Black Copy 0.30 $0.30 0% $0.30 $032 9X12 Color Copy 0.60 $0.60 0% $0.60 $033 8.5X11 Black Copy 0.26 $0.26 0% $0.26 $034 8.5X11 Color Copy 0.52 $0.52 0% $0.52 $035 36X48 Black Copy 4.82 $4.82 0% $4.82 $036 36X48 Color Copy 9.63 $9.63 0% $9.63 $037 34X44 Black Copy 4.17 $4.17 0% $4.17 $0 24
Agenda Item #11.2.
General City
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ38 34X44 Color Copy 8.34 $8.34 0% $8.34 $039 30X42 Black Copy 3.51 $3.51 0% $3.51 $040 30X42 Color Copy 7.02 $7.02 0% $7.02 $041 24X36 Black Copy 2.41 $2.41 0% $2.41 $042 24X36 Color Copy 4.82 $4.82 0% $4.82 $043 22X34 Black Copy 1.93 $1.93 0% $1.93 $044 22X34 Color Copy 3.87 $3.87 0% $3.87 $045 18X24 Black Copy 1.20 $1.20 0% $1.20 $046 18X24 Color Copy 2.41 $2.41 0% $2.41 $047 17X22 Black Copy 1.04 $1.04 0% $1.04 $048 17X22 Color Copy 2.09 $2.09 0% $2.09 $049 12X18 Black Copy 0.60 $0.60 0% $0.60 $050 12X18 Color Copy 1.20 $1.20 0% $1.20 $051 11X17 Black Copy 0.50 $0.50 0% $0.50 $052 11X17 Color Copy 1.00 $1.00 0% $1.00 $053 Meter Charge - Black Copy 0.03 per page $0.03 0% $0.03 $054 Meter Charge - Color Copy 0.06 per page $0.06 0% $0.06 $0 25
Agenda Item #11.2.
PLANNING
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 1 Appeals 2,600.00 $4,956.55 39% $3,000.00 $4002 Administrative Determination 1,500.00 $3,129.41 36% $2,000.00 $5003 Affordable Housing Agreement 5,000.00 $10,080.93 40% $6,000.00 $1,0004 Certificate of Compliance 1,200.00 $2,005.29 40% $1,200.00 $05 Code Enforcement Hourly NA NA Hourly $06 CEQA Documents7 Negative Declaration 5,600.00 Actual Time @ Staff Hourly Rates w/Deposit NA NA $6,500.00 $9008 Mitigated Negative Declaration - in-house 11,600.00 Actual Time @ Staff Hourly Rates w/Deposit NA NA $13,000.00 $1,4009 Mit Neg Dec consultant contract management 3,200.00 Actual Time @ Staff Hourly Rates w/Deposit NA NA $5,000.00 $1,800 10 EIR Consultant Contract Management 9,000.00 Actual Time @ Staff Hourly Rates w/Deposit NA NA $10,000.00 $1,00011 Demolition Permit 1,700.00 $3,045.54 18% $2,500.00 $80012 Design Review:13 Residential < 1,000 sq ft 2,600.00 $3,781.70 31% $2,600.00 $014 Residential > 1,000 sq ft 3,700.00 $6,254.79 36% $4,000.00 $30015 Commercial < 5,000 sq ft 4,000.00 $8,546.97 41% $5,000.00 $1,00016 Commercial > 5,000 sq ft 9,000.00 $14,829.89 33% $10,000.00 $1,00017 Design Review Exemption 1,000.00 $2,681.98 44% $1,500.00 $50018 Development Agreement 13,500.00 $17,927.87 16% $15,000.00 $1,50019 General Plan Amendment / Map Change 13,000.00 Actual Time @ Staff Hourly Rates w/Deposit NA NA $13,000.00 $020 Home Occupation Permit 200.00 $451.39 34% $300.00 $10021 Lot Line Adjustment 3,000.00 $6,601.91 9% $6,000.00 $3,00022 Lot Merger / Reversion to Acreage 1,200.00 $5,547.15 10% $5,000.00 $3,80023 Mills Act 1,400.00 $3,702.05 5% $3,500.00 $2,10024 Tentative Parcel Map (<5 lots) 6,300.00 $9,348.21 2% $9,200.00 $2,90025 Subdivision Tentative Map (5 or more lots) 35,000.00 Actual Time @ Staff Hourly Rates w/Deposit NA NA $35,000.00 $0 26
Agenda Item #11.2.
PLANNING
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 26 Pre-Application Review 4,200.00 Includes Council time, Vintage Hall, etc. $5,754.28 27% $4,200.00 $027 Planned Development Rezoning 8,200.00 Actual Time @ Staff Hourly Rates w/Deposit NA NA $10,000.00 $1,80028 Public Hearing Noticing Fee - legal 400.00 NA NA $400.00 $029 Public Hearing Mailing Label Preparation 200.00 $375.39 47% $200.00 $030 Sign Permit 1,000.00 $1,653.56 40% $1,000.00 $031 Specific Plan 25,000.00 Actual Time @ Staff Hourly Rates w/Deposit NA NA $25,000.00 $032 Temporary Use Permit / Special Event 1,700.00 $2,684.66 26% $2,000.00 $30033 Use Permit (Minor / Major) 5,200.00 $8,011.01 25% $6,000.00 $80034 Use Permit Amendment 2,900.00 $4,794.19 27% $3,500.00 $60035 Variance 4,500.00 $7,265.83 11% $6,500.00 $2,00036 Williamson Act Contract 2,300.00 $5,811.57 14% $5,000.00 $2,70037 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 9,000.00 $13,026.73 31% $9,000.00 $038 Design Review Resubmittal Fee New on 3rd submittal $3,254.32 32% $2,200.00 NA39 Administrative Sign Permit New $1,014.48 51% $500.00 NA40 Cottage Food Operation 119.00 $1,242.46 84% $200.00 $81.0041 Permit Extension 1,500.00 $2,681.98 44% $1,500.00 $0.0042 Rezoning - Map Amendment 13,000.00 Actual Time @ Staff Hourly Rates w/Deposit NA NA $13,000.00 $0.0043 Short Term Renewal Permit 2,250.00 $3,345.91 33% $2,250.00 $0.0044 Hourly Rates:45 Planning Director 160.00 per hour $363.56 36% $232.00 $7246 Senior Planner 150.00 per hour $263.69 36% $170.00 $2047 Associate Planner 125.00 per hour $263.69 49% $135.00 $1048 Building/Planning Permit Technician 125.00 per hour $187.70 37% $118.00 -$749 Standard (Blended) Planning Staff Rate 150.00 per hour $251.42 36% $160.00 $10 27
Agenda Item #11.2.
BUILDING
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ1 Antennas 547.00 each $1,043.94 48% $547.00 $02 Awnings / Shade Structures / Canopies 476.00 $908.44 48% $476.00 $03 Balcony 462.00 $881.72 48% $462.00 $04 Carport (new/replacement) New each $1,597.81 47% $850.00 NA5 Cave 1349.00 $2,574.55 48% $1,349.00 $06 Cellular / Mobile Phone Tower - New 844.00 each $1,610.77 48% $844.00 $07 Cellular / Mobile Phone Tower - Addition/Alteration 500.00 each $954.24 48% $500.00 $08 Certificate of Occupancy 0.00 $0.00 0% $0.00 $09 Change of Occupancy 0.00 $0.00 0% $0.00 $010 Commercial access upgrade- first ramp New $1,047.51 52% $500.00 NA11 Temporary Occupancy Permit 0.00 $0.00 0% $0.00 $012 Construction Trailer (anchored) 567.00 $1,082.11 48% $567.00 $013 Deck 529.00 $1,009.59 48% $529.00 $014 Demolition - Total 438.00 $835.92 48% $438.00 $015 Demolition - Partial / Exploratory Demolition 406.00 $774.85 48% $406.00 $016 Dry-rot New $474.30 47% $250.00 NA17 Fence (wood, chain link, wrought iron, vinyl) 398.00 $759.58 48% $398.00 $018 Flag pole > 6 feet 254.00 each $484.76 48% $254.00 $019 Freestanding Wall (masonry):20 Up to 6' 621.00 $1,185.17 48% $621.00 $021 Greater than 6' (engineered) 823.00 $1,570.69 48% $823.00 $022 Fireplace / Pizza Oven / BBQ - Masonry 398.00 each $759.58 48% $398.00 $023 Fireplace retrofit/chimney repair New each $1,047.51 47% $550.00 NA24 Foundation and / or Slab Repair 465.00 $887.45 48% $465.00 $025 Greywater System 965.00 $1,841.69 86% $250.00 -$71526 Light Standards 422.00 each $805.38 48% $422.00 $027 Manufactured / Pre-fab Buildings (foundation and utility connections) 1271.00 $2,425.69 48% $1,271.00 $028 Move House / Building 532.00 $1,015.32 48% $532.00 $029 Outdoor Kitchen 634.00 $1,209.98 48% $634.00 $030 Partition-commercial 549.00 $1,047.76 48% $549.00 $031 Patio Cover 530.00 $1,011.50 48% $530.00 $032 Patio Room 928.00 $1,771.08 48% $928.00 $033 Pile Foundation 639.00 each $1,219.53 48% $639.00 $034 Remodel - Bathroom 729.00 $1,391.29 68% $450.00 -$27935 Remodel - Kitchen 822.00 $1,568.78 59% $650.00 -$17236 Repairs - Minor 372.00 $709.96 48% $372.00 $037 Repairs - Major 1365.00 $2,605.09 48% $1,365.00 $038 Re-roofing - Residential - First 10 squares 286.00 $545.83 48% $286.00 $039 Each additional 10 squares 94.00 $179.40 48% $94.00 $040 Re-roofing - Commercial - First 10 squares 511.00 $975.24 48% $511.00 $0 28
Agenda Item #11.2.
BUILDING
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ41 Each additional 10 squares 129.00 $246.20 48% $129.00 $042 Roof structure replacement 614.00 $1,171.81 48% $614.00 $043 Retaining Wall - City Standard 933.00 $1,780.62 48% $933.00 $044 Retaining Wall w/ Calcs 933.00 $1,780.62 48% $933.00 $045 Sauna 554.00 each $1,057.30 48% $554.00 $046 Siding / stucco / veneer 504.00 $961.88 48% $504.00 $047 Signs (plus electrical permits, if necessary):48 Pole, monument, and wall or roof signs 557.00 each $1,063.03 48% $557.00 $049 Skylight 440.00 each $839.74 48% $440.00 $050 Sign (non-illuminated) New each $644.14 42% $375.00 NA51 Sign (monument) New each $644.14 34% $424.00 NA52 Solar:53 Solar Water Heating sys - roof mounted 654.00 each system $1,248.15 48% $654.00 $054 Solar Water Heating sys - ground mounted 794.00 $1,515.34 48% $794.00 $055 Solar Photovoltaic Sys - Roof Mounted Residential System up to 15kW 500.00 $15/kW after 15 kW $954.24 54% $436.00 -$6456 Solar PV - Commercial System 1000.00 $7/kW between 51 & 250 kW, $5/kW 251kW and above
$1,908.49 48% $1,000.00 $0
57 Stair repair/replace New each $1,047.51 33% $701.00 NA58 Suspended Ceiling 413.00 $788.21 21% $619.50 $20759 Swimming Pool / Spa:60 Vinyl-lined / fiberglass - up to 800 sf 1052.00 $2,007.73 48% $1,052.00 $061 Each additional 100 sf 205.00 $391.24 48% $205.00 $062 Gunite / Shotcrete - up to 800 sf 1196.00 $2,282.55 48% $1,196.00 $063 Each additional 100 sf 209.00 $398.87 48% $209.00 $064 Swimming Pool / Spa remodel - up to 800 sf 1768.00 $3,374.21 48% $1,768.00 $065 Each additional 100 sf 185.00 $353.07 48% $185.00 $066 Tents 477.00 $910.35 48% $477.00 $067 Water Tanks 948.00 $1,809.25 48% $948.00 $068 Window / Door replacement w/ structural modification 444.00 $847.37 65% $300.00 -$14469 Fees without cost calculations70 Expired Permit Fee At the discretion of the Director NA NA At the discretion of the Director NA71 Mechanical Permits:72 Heating and/or AC - Residential 125.00 $238.56 48% $125.00 $073 Heating and/or AC - Commercial 225.00 $429.41 48% $225.00 $074 Minor - Residential 373.00 $711.87 68% $225.00 -$14875 Minor - Commercial / Non-Residential 555.00 $1,059.21 48% $555.00 $0 29
Agenda Item #11.2.
BUILDING
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ76 Plumbing Permits:77 Water Heater - Residential 75.00 $143.14 48% $75.00 $078 Water Heater - Commercial 175.00 $333.99 48% $175.00 $079 Minor - Residential 332.00 $633.62 64% $225.00 -$10780 Minor - Commercial / Non-Residential 509.00 $971.42 48% $509.00 $081 Electrical Permits:82 Service Change - Residential 125.00 $238.56 48% $125.00 $083 Service Change - Commercial 225.00 $429.41 48% $225.00 $084 Temp Power Pole - Residential 125.00 $238.56 79% $50.00 -$7585 Temp Power Pole - Commercial 225.00 $429.41 77% $100.00 -$12586 Minor - Residential 436.00 $832.10 73% $225.00 -$21187 Minor - Commercial / Non-Residential 604.00 $1,152.73 48% $604.00 $088 Home Generator Permit Fee 582.50 Refund amount of $146.50 $1,111.70 48% $582.50 $089 Fire 90 Ansul - Commercial / Non-Residential 489.00 $933.25 21% $733.50 $24591 Sprinklers - Residential System (up to 20 heads) 754.00 $1,439.00 21% $1,131.00 $37792 Sprinklers - Commercial / Non-Residential System (up to 20 heads) 983.00 $1,876.05 21% $1,474.50 $49293 Sprinklers - Additional Heads (each 20) 127.00 $242.38 21% $190.50 $6494 Alarm System 765.00 $1,459.99 21% $1,147.50 $38395 Hourly Rates96 Services Beyond Standard Fee (per the Director) 0.00 $0.00 0% $0.00 $097 After Hours Inspection Fee 154.00 per hour 4 hour minimum $293.91 21% $231.00 $7798 Records Research 77.00 first 1/2 hr $146.95 21% $115.50 $3999 Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) 64.00 $122.14 21% $96.00 $32100 Supplement Plan Check Fee 107.00 first 1/2 hr 1 hour minimum $204.21 21% $160.50 $54101 Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) 94.00 $179.40 21% $141.00 $47102 Supplement Inspection Fee 83.00 first 1/2 hr 1 hour minimum $158.40 21% $124.50 $42103 Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) 70.00 $133.59 21% $105.00 $35104 Building Official New per hour $286.60 32% $194.00 NA105 Permit Tech New per hour $187.70 37% $118.00 NA 30
Agenda Item #11.2.
ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Square
Footage
Current Plan Check
Fee (Base Fee)
Current Inspections Fee
(Base Fee)
Current Combined
Total Fee (Base Fee)
New Plan Check Fee
(Base Fee)
New Inspections Fee
(Base Fee)
New Combined Total
Fee (Base Fee)
A & E
Assembly and Educational Occ New 4,852.00 400 plus 1.89 2,104.00 plus 0.41 6,956.00 plus 2.30 7,278.00 plus 2.84 3,156.00 plus 0.62 10,434.00 plus 3.46 5,989.00 1,000 plus 0.87 2,352.00 plus 0.17 8,341.00 plus 1.04 8,983.50 plus 1.31 3,528.00 plus 0.25 12,511.50 plus 1.56 6,860.00 2,000 plus 0.44 2,518.00 plus 0.09 9,378.00 plus 0.53 10,290.00 plus 0.65 3,777.00 plus 0.13 14,067.00 plus 0.79 7,730.00 4,000 plus 0.38 2,695.00 plus 0.07 10,425.00 plus 0.45 11,595.00 plus 0.57 4,042.50 plus 0.10 15,637.50 plus 0.67 10,000 10,024.00 plus 1.00 3,085.00 plus 0.31 13,109.00 plus 1.31 15,036.00 plus 1.50 4,627.50 plus 0.46 19,663.50 plus 1.97
0.380000 0.225806 0.343511 0.381418 0.210697 0.341241
A & E
Assembly and Educational Occ Additional 3,017.00 200 plus 2.04 714.00 plus 0.28 3,731.00 plus 2.32 4,525.50 plus 3.07 1,071.00 plus 0.42 5,596.50 plus 3.49 3,630.00 500 plus 1.01 798.00 plus 0.11 4,428.00 plus 1.12 5,445.00 plus 1.51 1,197.00 plus 0.17 6,642.00 plus 1.68 4,134.00 1,000 plus 0.50 854.00 plus 0.06 4,988.00 plus 0.56 6,201.00 plus 0.76 1,281.00 plus 0.09 7,482.00 plus 0.85 4,638.00 2,000 plus 0.43 914.00 plus 0.04 5,552.00 plus 0.47 6,957.00 plus 0.65 1,371.00 plus 0.07 8,328.00 plus 0.71 5,000 5,931.00 plus 1.19 1,046.00 plus 0.21 6,977.00 plus 1.40 8,896.50 plus 1.78 1,569.00 plus 0.31 10,465.50 plus 2.09
0.361345 0.190476 0.335714 0.363345 0.210325 0.340404
A & E
Assembly and Educational Occ Remodel/TI 2,257.00 200 plus 1.88 714.00 plus 0.28 2,971.00 plus 2.16 3,385.50 plus 2.82 1,071.00 plus 0.42 4,456.50 plus 3.24 2,821.00 500 plus 0.93 798.00 plus 0.11 3,619.00 plus 1.04 4,231.50 plus 1.39 1,197.00 plus 0.17 5,428.50 plus 1.56 3,285.00 1,000 plus 0.46 854.00 plus 0.06 4,139.00 plus 0.52 4,927.50 plus 0.70 1,281.00 plus 0.09 6,208.50 plus 0.79 3,749.00 2,000 plus 0.40 914.00 plus 0.04 4,663.00 plus 0.44 5,623.50 plus 0.60 1,371.00 plus 0.07 6,994.50 plus 0.66 5,000 4,942.00 plus 0.99 1,046.00 plus 0.21 5,988.00 plus 1.20 7,413.00 plus 1.48 1,569.00 plus 0.31 8,982.00 plus 1.80
0.404040 0.190476 0.366667 0.402334 0.210325 0.368793
B & M
Business and Merchantile Occ New 2,858.00 400 plus 0.94 1,880.00 plus 0.37 4,738.00 plus 1.31 4,287.00 plus 1.41 2,820.00 plus 0.56 7,107.00 plus 1.97 3,422.00 1,000 plus 0.42 2,102.00 plus 0.15 5,524.00 plus 0.57 5,133.00 plus 0.63 3,153.00 plus 0.22 8,286.00 plus 0.86 3,844.00 2,000 plus 0.21 2,250.00 plus 0.08 6,094.00 plus 0.29 5,766.00 plus 0.32 3,375.00 plus 0.12 9,141.00 plus 0.44 4,266.00 4,000 plus 0.19 2,409.00 plus 0.06 6,675.00 plus 0.25 6,399.00 plus 0.28 3,613.50 plus 0.09 10,012.50 plus 0.37 10,000 5,392.00 plus 0.54 2,757.00 plus 0.28 8,149.00 plus 0.82 8,088.00 plus 0.81 4,135.50 plus 0.41 12,223.50 plus 1.22
0.351852 0.214286 0.304878 0.348046 0.210374 0.301468
B & M
Business and Merchantile Occ Additional 2,243.00 200 plus 1.30 699.00 plus 0.27 2,942.00 plus 1.57 3,364.50 plus 1.96 1,048.50 plus 0.41 4,413.00 plus 2.37 2,634.00 500 plus 0.61 781.00 plus 0.11 3,415.00 plus 0.72 3,951.00 plus 0.92 1,171.50 plus 0.17 5,122.50 plus 1.09 2,942.00 1,000 plus 0.31 836.00 plus 0.06 3,778.00 plus 0.37 4,413.00 plus 0.46 1,254.00 plus 0.09 5,667.00 plus 0.55 3,249.00 2,000 plus 0.27 895.00 plus 0.04 4,144.00 plus 0.31 4,873.50 plus 0.40 1,342.50 plus 0.07 6,216.00 plus 0.47 5,000 4,051.00 plus 0.81 1,025.00 plus 0.20 5,076.00 plus 1.01 6,076.50 plus 1.22 1,537.50 plus 0.31 7,614.00 plus 1.52
0.333333 0.200000 0.306931 0.329960 0.211382 0.306015
B & M
Business and Merchantile Occ Remodel/TI 1,533.00 200 plus 1.18 618.00 plus 0.24 2,151.00 plus 1.42 2,299.50 plus 1.78 927.00 plus 0.37 3,226.50 plus 2.14 1,888.00 500 plus 0.55 691.00 plus 0.10 2,579.00 plus 0.65 2,832.00 plus 0.82 1,036.50 plus 0.14 3,868.50 plus 0.97 2,162.00 1,000 plus 0.27 739.00 plus 0.05 2,901.00 plus 0.32 3,243.00 plus 0.41 1,108.50 plus 0.08 4,351.50 plus 0.49 2,436.00 2,000 plus 0.24 792.00 plus 0.04 3,228.00 plus 0.28 3,654.00 plus 0.36 1,188.00 plus 0.06 4,842.00 plus 0.42 5,000 3,158.00 plus 0.63 906.00 plus 0.18 4,064.00 plus 0.81 4,737.00 plus 0.95 1,359.00 plus 0.27 6,096.00 plus 1.22
0.380952 0.222222 0.345679 0.381043 0.209713 0.342848
F & S
Factory and Storage Occ New 2,989.00 1,000 plus 0.39 1,574.00 plus 0.12 4,563.00 plus 0.51 4,483.50 plus 0.58 2,361.00 plus 0.19 6,844.50 plus 0.77 3,573.00 2,500 plus 0.22 1,760.00 plus 0.05 5,333.00 plus 0.27 5,359.50 plus 0.33 2,640.00 plus 0.07 7,999.50 plus 0.40 4,119.00 5,000 plus 0.11 1,884.00 plus 0.03 6,003.00 plus 0.14 6,178.50 plus 0.16 2,826.00 plus 0.04 9,004.50 plus 0.20 4,665.00 10,000 plus 0.09 2,017.00 plus 0.02 6,682.00 plus 0.11 6,997.50 plus 0.13 3,025.50 plus 0.03 10,023.00 plus 0.16 25,000 6,004.00 plus 0.24 2,308.00 plus 0.09 8,312.00 plus 0.33 9,006.00 plus 0.36 3,462.00 plus 0.14 12,468.00 plus 0.50
0.375000 0.222222 0.333333 0.371697 0.210139 0.326837
F & S
Factory and Storage Occ Additional 2,219.00 200 plus 1.26 706.00 plus 0.28 2,925.00 plus 1.54 3,328.50 plus 1.88 1,059.00 plus 0.42 4,387.50 plus 2.30 2,594.00 500 plus 0.69 790.00 plus 0.11 3,384.00 plus 0.80 3,891.00 plus 1.04 1,185.00 plus 0.17 5,076.00 plus 1.20 2,940.00 1,000 plus 0.34 845.00 plus 0.06 3,785.00 plus 0.40 4,410.00 plus 1.33 1,267.50 plus 0.09 5,677.50 plus 1.42 3,828.00 2,000 plus 0.28 905.00 plus 0.04 4,733.00 plus 0.32 5,742.00 plus 0.15 1,357.50 plus 0.07 7,099.50 plus 0.22 5,000 4,131.00 plus 0.83 1,036.00 plus 0.21 5,167.00 plus 1.04 6,196.50 plus 1.24 1,554.00 plus 0.31 7,750.50 plus 1.55
0.337349 0.190476 0.307692 0.122246 0.210746 0.139991
F & S
Factory and Storage Occ Remodel/TI 1,509.00 200 plus 1.14 706.00 plus 0.28 2,215.00 plus 1.42 2,263.50 plus 1.71 1,059.00 plus 0.42 3,322.50 plus 2.13 1,851.00 500 plus 0.62 790.00 plus 0.11 2,641.00 plus 0.73 2,776.50 plus 0.93 1,185.00 plus 0.17 3,961.50 plus 1.09 2,160.00 1,000 plus 0.31 845.00 plus 0.06 3,005.00 plus 0.37 3,240.00 plus 0.47 1,267.50 plus 0.09 4,507.50 plus 0.56 2,470.00 2,000 plus 0.26 905.00 plus 0.04 3,375.00 plus 0.30 3,705.00 plus 0.38 1,357.50 plus 0.07 5,062.50 plus 0.45 5,000 3,239.00 plus 0.65 1,036.00 plus 0.21 4,275.00 plus 0.86 4,858.50 plus 0.97 1,554.00 plus 0.31 6,412.50 plus 1.28
0.400000 0.190476 0.348837 0.395698 0.210746 0.350877
Each Additional SF Each Additional SF
BUILDING PERMIT FEES - CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, II FR
Each Additional SF Each Additional SF Each Additional SF Each Additional SF 31
Agenda Item #11.2.
ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Square
Footage
Current Plan Check
Fee (Base Fee)
Current Inspections Fee
(Base Fee)
Current Combined
Total Fee (Base Fee)
New Plan Check Fee
(Base Fee)
New Inspections Fee
(Base Fee)
New Combined Total
Each Additional SF Fee (Base Fee) Each Additional SF
BUILDING PERMIT FEES - CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, II FR
Each Additional SF Each Additional SF Each Additional SF Each Additional SF H & I
Hazardous and Industrial Occ New 3,208.00 400 plus 1.07 1,510.00 plus 0.30 4,718.00 plus 1.37 4,812.00 plus 1.61 2,265.00 plus 0.45 7,077.00 plus 2.05 3,851.00 1,000 plus 0.55 1,688.00 plus 0.12 5,539.00 plus 0.67 5,776.50 plus 0.82 2,532.00 plus 0.18 8,308.50 plus 1.00 4,398.00 2,000 plus 0.27 1,806.00 plus 0.06 6,204.00 plus 0.33 6,597.00 plus 0.41 2,709.00 plus 0.10 9,306.00 plus 0.51 4,944.00 4,000 plus 0.23 1,934.00 plus 0.05 6,878.00 plus 0.28 7,416.00 plus 0.34 2,901.00 plus 0.07 10,317.00 plus 0.41 10,000 6,323.00 plus 0.63 2,214.00 plus 0.22 8,537.00 plus 0.85 9,484.50 plus 0.95 3,321.00 plus 0.33 12,805.50 plus 1.28
0.365079 0.227273 0.329412 0.363488 0.210780 0.323884
H & I
Hazardous and Industrial Occ Additional 2,239.00 200 plus 1.28 706.00 plus 0.28 2,945.00 plus 1.56 3,358.50 plus 1.93 1,059.00 plus 0.42 4,417.50 plus 2.35 2,624.00 500 plus 0.63 790.00 plus 0.11 3,414.00 plus 0.74 3,936.00 plus 0.95 1,185.00 plus 0.17 5,121.00 plus 1.11 2,940.00 1,000 plus 0.32 845.00 plus 0.06 3,785.00 plus 0.38 4,410.00 plus 0.47 1,267.50 plus 0.09 5,677.50 plus 0.56 3,256.00 2,000 plus 0.27 905.00 plus 0.04 4,161.00 plus 0.31 4,884.00 plus 0.40 1,357.50 plus 0.07 6,241.50 plus 0.47 5,000 4,065.00 plus 0.81 1,036.00 plus 0.21 5,101.00 plus 1.02 6,097.50 plus 1.22 1,554.00 plus 0.31 7,651.50 plus 1.53
0.333333 0.190476 0.303922 0.331693 0.210746 0.307129
H & I
Hazardous and Industrial Occ Remodel/TI 1,529.00 200 plus 1.16 706.00 plus 0.28 2,235.00 plus 1.44 2,293.50 plus 1.74 1,059.00 plus 0.42 3,352.50 plus 2.16 1,877.00 500 plus 0.57 790.00 plus 0.11 2,667.00 plus 0.68 2,815.50 plus 0.85 1,185.00 plus 0.17 4,000.50 plus 1.01 2,160.00 1,000 plus 0.28 845.00 plus 0.06 3,005.00 plus 0.34 3,240.00 plus 0.42 1,267.50 plus 0.09 4,507.50 plus 0.51 2,443.00 2,000 plus 0.24 905.00 plus 0.04 3,348.00 plus 0.28 3,664.50 plus 0.36 1,357.50 plus 0.07 5,022.00 plus 0.43 5,000 3,172.00 plus 0.63 1,036.00 plus 0.21 4,208.00 plus 0.84 4,758.00 plus 0.95 1,554.00 plus 0.31 6,312.00 plus 1.26
0.380952 0.190476 0.333333 0.383039 0.210746 0.340621
U
Accessory Buildings Occ New 1,831.00 200 plus 0.89 728.00 plus 0.29 2,559.00 plus 1.18 2,746.50 plus 1.35 1,092.00 plus 0.43 3,838.50 plus 1.78 2,100.00 500 plus 0.40 814.00 plus 0.11 2,914.00 plus 0.51 3,150.00 plus (0.75) 1,221.00 plus (0.22) 4,371.00 plus (0.97) 2,301.00 100 plus 0.20 872.00 plus 0.06 3,173.00 plus 0.26 3,451.50 plus 0.16 1,308.00 plus 0.05 4,759.50 plus 0.21 2,502.00 2,000 plus 0.18 933.00 plus 0.05 3,435.00 plus 0.23 3,753.00 plus 0.27 1,399.50 plus 0.07 5,152.50 plus 0.34 5,000 3,045.00 plus 0.61 1,068.00 plus 0.21 4,113.00 plus 0.82 4,567.50 plus 0.91 1,602.00 plus 0.32 6,169.50 plus 1.23
0.295082 0.238095 0.280488 0.297209 0.210674 0.274739
U
Accessory Buildings Occ Additional 1,468.00 100 plus 1.12 640.00 plus 0.50 2,108.00 plus 1.62 2,202.00 plus 1.67 960.00 plus 0.76 3,162.00 plus 2.43 1,635.00 250 plus 0.51 716.00 plus 0.20 2,351.00 plus 0.71 2,452.50 plus 0.77 1,074.00 plus 0.30 3,526.50 plus 1.07 1,763.00 500 plus 0.26 766.00 plus 0.11 2,529.00 plus 0.37 2,644.50 plus 0.38 1,149.00 plus 0.16 3,793.50 plus 0.55 1,891.00 1,000 plus 0.23 820.00 plus 0.08 2,711.00 plus 0.31 2,836.50 plus 0.34 1,230.00 plus 0.12 4,066.50 plus 0.46 2,500 2,230.00 plus 0.89 938.00 plus 0.38 3,168.00 plus 1.27 3,345.00 plus 1.34 1,407.00 plus 0.56 4,752.00 plus 1.90
0.258427 0.210526 0.244094 0.253363 0.209666 0.240425
U
Accessory Buildings Occ Remodel/TI 897.00 100 plus 1.12 552.00 plus 0.43 1,449.00 plus 1.55 1,345.50 plus 1.68 828.00 plus 0.65 2,173.50 plus 2.33 1,065.00 250 plus 0.51 617.00 plus 0.17 1,682.00 plus 0.68 1,597.50 plus 0.77 925.50 plus 0.26 2,523.00 plus 1.03 1,193.00 500 plus 0.26 660.00 plus 0.09 1,853.00 plus 0.35 1,789.50 plus 0.38 990.00 plus 0.14 2,779.50 plus 0.52 1,320.00 1,000 plus 0.23 707.00 plus 0.07 2,027.00 plus 0.30 1,980.00 plus 0.34 1,060.50 plus 0.10 3,040.50 plus 0.44 2,500 1,660.00 plus 0.66 809.00 plus 0.32 2,469.00 plus 0.98 2,490.00 plus 1.00 1,213.50 plus 0.49 3,703.50 plus 1.48
0.348485 0.218750 0.306122 0.341365 0.210136 0.298366
R-3
Single-Family Residence (Typcial) New 2,154.00 1,000 plus 0.42 1,669.00 plus 0.17 3,823.00 plus 0.59 3,231.00 plus 0.64 2,503.50 plus 0.25 5,734.50 plus 0.89 2,578.00 2,000 plus 0.21 1,838.00 plus 0.16 4,416.00 plus 0.37 3,867.00 plus 0.32 2,757.00 plus 0.25 6,624.00 plus 0.56 3,000.00 4,000 plus 0.35 2,166.00 plus 0.11 5,166.00 plus 0.46 4,500.00 plus 0.53 3,249.00 plus 0.17 7,749.00 plus 0.70 4,056.00 7,000 plus 0.40 2,509.00 plus 0.10 6,565.00 plus 0.50 6,084.00 plus 0.60 3,763.50 plus 0.15 9,847.50 plus 0.74 10,000 5,251.00 plus 0.53 2,799.00 plus 0.28 8,050.00 plus 0.81 7,876.50 plus 0.79 4,198.50 plus 0.42 12,075.00 plus 1.21
0.754717 0.357143 0.617284 0.758586 0.345361 0.614907
R-3
Single-Family Residence (Typcial) Additional 250-500 1,607.00 plus 0.98 1,018.00 plus 0.41 2,625.00 plus 1.39 2,410.50 plus 1.46 1,527.00 plus 0.62 3,937.50 plus 2.08 1,851.00 750 plus 0.50 1,121.00 plus 0.40 2,972.00 plus 0.90 2,776.50 plus 1.49 1,681.50 plus 1.20 4,458.00 plus 2.69 2,100.00 1,000 plus 0.83 1,321.00 plus 0.28 3,421.00 plus 1.11 3,150.00 plus 1.24 1,981.50 plus 0.42 5,131.50 plus 1.66 2,722.00 1,750 plus 0.94 1,530.00 plus 0.24 4,252.00 plus 1.18 4,083.00 plus 1.41 2,295.00 plus 0.35 6,378.00 plus 1.77 2,500 3,428.00 plus 1.37 1,707.00 plus 0.68 5,135.00 plus 2.05 5,142.00 plus 2.06 2,560.50 plus 1.02 7,702.50 plus 3.08
0.686131 0.352941 0.575610 0.686503 0.345636 0.573191
R-1,2,4
Single-Family Residence (Typcial) Remodel/TI 250-500 992.00 plus 0.94 896.00 plus 0.36 1,888.00 plus 1.30 1,488.00 plus 1.40 1,344.00 plus 0.54 2,832.00 plus 1.94 1,225.00 750 plus 0.47 986.00 plus 0.35 2,211.00 plus 0.82 1,837.50 plus 1.40 1,479.00 plus 1.06 3,316.50 plus 2.46 1,459.00 1,000 plus 0.78 1,162.00 plus 0.25 2,621.00 plus 1.03 2,188.50 plus 1.17 1,743.00 plus 0.37 3,931.50 plus 1.54 2,046.00 1,750 plus 0.88 1,346.00 plus 0.21 3,392.00 plus 1.09 3,069.00 plus 1.32 2,019.00 plus 0.31 5,088.00 plus 1.64 2,500 2,708.00 plus 1.08 1,502.00 plus 0.60 4,210.00 plus 1.68 4,062.00 plus 1.62 2,253.00 plus 0.90 6,315.00 plus 2.53
0.814815 0.350000 0.648810 0.814870 0.346205 0.647664
R-3
Multifamilhy Residential / Hotel / Care Occ New 3,467.00 1,000 plus 0.84 2,036.00 plus 0.21 5,503.00 plus 1.05 5,200.50 plus 1.27 3,054.00 plus 0.31 8,254.50 plus 1.58 4,312.00 2,000 plus 0.43 2,242.00 plus 0.20 6,554.00 plus 0.63 6,468.00 plus 0.65 3,363.00 plus 0.30 9,831.00 plus 0.95 5,174.00 4,000 plus 0.71 2,641.00 plus 0.14 7,815.00 plus 0.85 7,761.00 plus 1.06 3,961.50 plus 0.21 11,722.50 plus 1.27 7,296.00 7,000 plus 0.82 3,060.00 plus 0.12 10,356.00 plus 0.94 10,944.00 plus 1.23 4,590.00 plus 0.18 15,534.00 plus 1.41 10,000 9,755.00 plus 0.98 3,414.00 plus 0.34 13,169.00 plus 1.32 14,632.50 plus 1.46 5,121.00 plus 0.51 19,753.50 plus 1.98 32
Agenda Item #11.2.
ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Square
Footage
Current Plan Check
Fee (Base Fee)
Current Inspections Fee
(Base Fee)
Current Combined
Total Fee (Base Fee)
New Plan Check Fee
(Base Fee)
New Inspections Fee
(Base Fee)
New Combined Total
Each Additional SF Fee (Base Fee) Each Additional SF
BUILDING PERMIT FEES - CONSTRUCTION TYPES: I FR, II FR
Each Additional SF Each Additional SF Each Additional SF Each Additional SF
0.836735 0.352941 0.712121 0.840253 0.345636 0.712026
R-3
Multifamilhy Residential / Hotel / Care Additional 2,282.00 250 plus 1.88 1,140.00 plus 0.46 3,422.00 plus 2.34 3,423.00 plus 2.81 1,710.00 plus 0.69 5,133.00 plus 3.50 2,751.00 500 plus 0.94 1,255.00 plus 0.45 4,006.00 plus 1.39 4,126.50 plus 1.41 1,882.50 plus 0.67 6,009.00 plus 2.09 3,222.00 1,000 plus 1.55 1,479.00 plus 0.31 4,701.00 plus 1.86 4,833.00 plus 2.32 2,218.50 plus 0.47 7,051.50 plus 2.79 4,384.00 1,750 plus 1.79 1,713.00 plus 0.26 6,097.00 plus 2.05 6,576.00 plus 2.69 2,569.50 plus 0.40 9,145.50 plus 3.09 2,500 5,728.00 plus 2.29 1,912.00 plus 0.77 7,640.00 plus 3.06 8,592.00 plus 3.44 2,868.00 plus 1.15 11,460.00 plus 4.58
0.781659 0.337662 0.669935 0.782123 0.346932 0.673211
R-3
Multifamilhy Residential / Hotel / Care Remodel/TI 1,618.00 250 plus 1.78 1,018.00 plus 0.41 2,636.00 plus 2.19 2,427.00 plus 2.68 1,527.00 plus 0.62 3,954.00 plus 3.29 2,064.00 500 plus 0.90 1,121.00 plus 0.40 3,185.00 plus 1.30 3,096.00 plus 1.34 1,681.50 plus 0.60 4,777.50 plus 1.94 2,512.00 1,000 plus 1.49 1,321.00 plus 0.28 3,833.00 plus 1.77 3,768.00 plus 2.23 1,981.50 plus 0.42 5,749.50 plus 2.65 3,627.00 1,750 plus 1.70 1,530.00 plus 0.24 5,157.00 plus 1.94 5,440.50 plus 2.55 2,295.00 plus 0.35 7,735.50 plus 2.90 2,500 4,901.00 plus 1.96 1,707.00 plus 0.68 6,608.00 plus 2.64 7,351.50 plus 2.94 2,560.50 plus 1.02 9,912.00 plus 3.96 33
Agenda Item #11.2.
PUBLIC WORKS
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 1 Land Subdivisions2 Final Parcel Map (< 5 lots) 2,100.00 plus consultant costs, if any $8,901.62 13% $7,700.00 $5,6003 Final Tract Map (5 or more lots) 2,500.00 plus consultant costs, if any $14,288.93 16% $12,000.00 $9,5004 County Final Map Fee (in addition to all City fees) Actual Cost NA NA Actual Cost $05 Grading Permit - Plan Check (Up to 3 reviews) 800.00 This would include addtl reviews if needed $1,298.07 23% $1,000.00 $2006 MAPS Hard Copy: Print/Photocopy (color, up to D-size) 25.00 per print $48.10 48% $25.00 $07 Stand-Alone Sanitary Sewer Inspection 225.00 $458.22 45% $250.00 $258 Abandonment of R/W or Easement 1,200.00 includes consultant costs $3,055.43 12% $2,700.00 $1,5009 R/W or Easement acceptance review/approval 1,200.00 includes consultant costs $3,055.43 12% $2,700.00 $1,50010 Copy of Standard Specifications 100.00 $146.19 18% $120.00 $2011 Permit Application / Review Process12 Encroachment Permit Minor 200.00 $809.29 32% $550.00 $35013 Encroachment Permit Major 500.00 $1,001.67 25% $750.00 $25014 Outside Fire Service Agreement Fee 2,500.00 $2,541.51 21% $2,000.00 -$50015 Community Banner 100.00 $381.76 35% $250.00 $15016 Driveway Approach Inspection 100.00 $513.68 22% $400.00 $30017 Raw Water permits 50.00 each Permit fee is per Quarter $446.35 83% $75.00 $2518 Sidewalk Dining Approval 1,000.00 $1,560.97 23% $1,200.00 $20019 Street Closure for Non-City Events 500.00 $997.64 25% $750.00 $25020 Transportation Permit - Per Day 50.00 $219.92 55% $100.00 $5021 Transportation Permit - 1 Week 75.00 $343.65 56% $150.00 $7522 Transportation Permit - 1 Year 150.00 $506.32 51% $250.00 $10023 Tree Permit Application / Review / Approval 75.00 $558.45 28% $400.00 $32524 Flood Certification Application / Review 850.00 $1,099.60 27% $800.00 -$5025 Stormwater Illicit Discharge Event and Re-Inspection 700.00 $1,362.43 27% $1,000.00 $30026 Sidewalk Trip Hazard and Repair 750.00 $1,205.25 25% $900.00 $15027 Special Event (City Council) w/ deposit New $389.37 23% $300.00 NA28 Special Events w/ deposit New $389.37 23% $300.00 NA29 Demo Permit New $363.25 17% $300.00 NA30 MWELO Landscape Plan review New *typically included with bldg permit $633.12 29% $450.00 NA31 BMP inspection New $325.33 39% $200.00 NA32 FOG inspection (violation) New $449.06 33% $300.00 NA33 Meter Test Fee New no charge if meter fails, unless failure is due to tampering $227.78 34% $150.00 NA34 Stormwater Inspections (Grading Off season) New Refundable deposit? NA NA $600.00 NA35 Work without permit Double the fee NA NA Double the fee $0.0036 Appeals Fee New $2,163.25 31% $1,500.00 NA 34
Agenda Item #11.2.
PUBLIC WORKS
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 37 Fire Hydrant Testing New $195.03 1% $194.00 NA38 Sewer Connection:39 Application Fee (new connection, existing occupancy) 900.00 $1,049.91 24% $800.00 -$10040 Connection Fee (inspection) - New Occupancy 400.00 $617.74 27% $450.00 $5041 Connection Fee (inspection) - Existing Occupancy 400.00 $617.74 27% $450.00 $5042 Annexation Process 2,000.00 $2,890.19 20% $2,300.00 $30043 WATER MISC:44 Well Permit Application / Review Process 650.00 $1,446.56 17% $1,200.00 $55045 Leak detection request New $0.00 for the first request $165.92 70% $50.00 NA46 Water Meter Installation:
Meter cost at
current rate +
staff time to
install
$494.01 NA
Meter cost at
current rate +
staff time to
install
$0
47 Meter Set Fee (Staff time only) 150.00 $331.84 25% $250.00 $10048 First backflow test for meter set if necessary 150.00 $213.77 30% $150.00 $049 Additional Backflow Test 150.00 each $213.77 30% $150.00 $050 Fire Service Residential:51 Inspection by City Staff (includes first backflow test) 150.00 $213.77 20% $170.00 $2052 Additional Backflow Test 150.00 each $213.77 20% $170.00 $2053 Commercial Water Supply:54 Inspection by City Staff (includes first backflow test) 150.00 $308.87 22% $240.00 $9055 Additional Backflow Test 150.00 each $308.87 22% $240.00 $9056 Fire Service Commercial:57 Inspection by City Staff (includes first backflow test) 150.00 $308.87 22% $240.00 $9058 Additional Backflow Test 150.00 each $308.87 22% $240.00 $9059 Outside Fire / water Service Agreement ($2500) New Plus City Attorney Fees $3,875.94 20% $3,100.00 NA60 Staff Billable Hourly Rates:61 Public Works Directors / City Eng. 225.00 hourly $451.85 26% $334.00 $10962 Assistant PW Director / City Eng. 185.00 hourly $451.85 37% $284.00 $9963 Associate Engineer 125.00 hourly $208.78 0% $208.00 $8364 Management Analyst 150.00 hourly $325.33 36% $209.00 $5965 Assistant Engineer New hourly $208.78 2% $205.00 NA66 Administrative Assistant 75.00 hourly $192.39 20% $154.00 $79 35