St. Helena City Council
November 14, 2023

 Planned Facilities - This approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development and is utilized when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified.
 System Plan - This approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where specific needed facilities serve both existing and new development and is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development.

The study identified facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identified the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
 Public Safety Facilities
 Civic Facilities
 Transportation
 Park and Recreation Facilities
 Storm Drainage Facilities
 Water Facilities
 Wastewater Facilities
The below chart shows the maximum fee justified that was calculated based on the current study for each category as it compares to the existing rate:

Category Current
Impact Fee
New Maximum
Justified Impact
Fee
% Difference
Public Safety Facilities (Fee per Square Foot)
Residential Unit 2.41 1.30 (46.1%)
Multifamily Unit 2.41 1.30 (46.1%)
Commercial 2.41 1.30 (46.1%)
Office 2.41 2.00 (17.0%)
Industrial 2.41 0.71 (70.5%)
Hotel Room 2.41 1.37 (43.2%)
Civic Facilities (Fee per Square Foot)
Residential Unit 3.61 1.60 (55.7%)
Multifamily Unit 3.61 1.60 (55.7%)
Commercial 3.61 1.60 (55.7%)
Office 3.61 2.46 (31.9%)
Industrial 3.61 0.87 (75.8%)
Hotel Room 3.61 1.69 (53.2%)
Transportation (Fee per Square Foot)
Agenda Item #13.1.

Residential Unit 3.59 0.81 (77.4%)
Multifamily Unit 4.14 0.81 (81.6%)
Commercial 28.49 5.10 (82.1%)
Office 8.08 4.06 (49.8%)
Industrial 5.51 2.43 (56.0%)
Hotel Room 11.53 5.46 (52.7%)
Parks and Recreation Facilities (Fee per Square Foot)
Residential Unit 10.46 3.77 (64.0%)
Multifamily Unit 10.46 3.77 (64.0%)
Storm Drainage Facilities (Fee per Square Foot)
Residential Unit 2.01 0.61 (69.7%)
Multifamily Unit 1.95 0.61 (69.7%)
Commercial 3.21 1.90 (40.7%)
Office 3.21 1.58 (50.7%)
Industrial 3.21 1.90 (40.7%)
Hotel Room 2.72 2.64 (2.8%)
Water Facilities (Fee per Square Foot)
Residential Unit 3.14 1.41 (55.1%)
Multifamily Unit 2.72 1.41 (55.1%)
Commercial 5.19 0.86 (83.4%)
Office 3.19 0.86 (73.0%)
Industrial 3.89 0.73 (81.2%)
Hotel Room 5.23 2.40 (54.0%)
Wastewater Facilities (Fee per Square Foot)
Residential Unit 1.64 1.57 (50.0%)
Multifamily Unit 1.91 1.57 (50.0%)
Commercial 2.20 1.87 (64.0%)
Office 1.62 1.87 (41.4%)
Industrial 1.82 1.65 (57.6%)
Hotel Room 2.19 5.50 5.2%
As shown in the chart above, the majority of the impact fees will be reduced with the adoption of the Development Impact Fee Study Report. Generally speaking, the reason for the reduction is that there were several improvements in the old study that have either been completed or are no longer being pursued during the 17-year planning horizon in the study. Another factor is that as development occurs the amount needed to offset impacts from new development shrinks and therefore the allocation of the facilities costs to new development shrinks as well. Therefore, the updated study allocates a lower percentage of the total project cost to new development.

Since impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in St. Helena and may not be used to fund the share of facility needs Agenda Item #13.1.

generated by existing development, the City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned facilities. The below chart shows the additional funding that will be required by fee category.

Fee Category Net Project Cost Projected Impact
Fee Revenue
Additional
Funding Required
Public Safety 3,730,662 3,730,662 -
Civic Facilities 4,589,658 4,589,658 -
Transportation
Facilities 18,799,000 4,060,584 14,738,416
Parks 7,771,000 7,771,000 -
Storm Drainage 19,273,000 2,356,359 16,916,641
Water 18,539,000 1,757,577 16,781,423
Wastewater 26,683,341 2,854,058 23,829,283
Totals 99,385,661 27,119,898 72,265,763
Public Notice
A public notice was published on September 21, 2023 in the Napa Valley Register. The proposed impact fee schedule and methodology for the fee calculations was made available for public review, electronically on the City's website by clicking the following link: Development Impact Fee Update Study Report or by appointment in the City Clerk’s office.

The City is also undergoing an Affordable Housing and Commercial Linkage Impact Fee Study. The results and recommendations of this study will be presented at the December 12, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting.

Ordinance and Resolution
Staff has proposed an ordinance that will amend Chapter 3.32 of the City's Municipal Code to provide that, instead of including the development impact fees in the Municipal Code, the City Council will enact the fees by resolution. This is a more common approach across the State, and easier to implement for City staff and the Council. Along with the ordinance, staff is proposing that the City Council approve a resolution that adopts the updated development impact fees.

Staff Recommendation
Based on the results of the Development Impact Fee Study the majority of the impact fees will be reduced. Staff is recommending that the current Development Impact Fee Schedule be updated based on the results of the Development Impact Fee Study, through the introduction and waiver of first reading of the proposed ordinance, and approval of the proposed resolution.

Agenda Item #13.1.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - St. Helena - Impact Fee Update Report - Final - 10-17-23 Attachment B - ST HELENA_ Ordinance Updated Chapter 3.32 Development Impact Fees redline
Attachment C - Resolution Adopting Development Impact Fee Schedule St. Helena Impact Fee Study Presentation 11-14-23
Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE
STUDY
FINAL
OCTOBER 17, 2023
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item #13.1.

This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #13.1.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 1 Background and Study Objectives 1
Facility Standards and Costs 1
Use of Fee Revenues 2
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 2
Other Funding Needed 4

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 5 Public Facilities Financing in California 5
Study Objectives 5
Fee Program Maintenance 6
Study Methodology 6
Types of Facility Standards 6
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 7
Organization of the Report 8

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ................................................................. 9 Land Use Types 9
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units 9
Existing and Future Development 10
Occupant Densities 11

3. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES ........................................................ 13 Service Population 13
Existing Facility Inventory 13
Cost Allocation 14
Fee Revenue Projection 15
Fee Schedule 15

4. CIVIC FACILITIES....................................................................... 17 Service Population 17
Existing Facilities Inventory 17
Cost Allocation 18
Fee Revenue Projection 19
Fee Schedule 19

5. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES..................................................... 21 Trip Demand 21
Trip Demand Growth 22
Planned Facilities 23
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 23
Fee Schedule 24
Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
ii

6. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES........................................... 25 Service Population 25
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory 25
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 26
Park Facility Standards 27
Quimby Act Standard 27
City of St. Helena Park Facilities Standards 27
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 28
Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita 29
Use of Fee Revenue 30
Fee Schedule 30

7. STORM DRAIN FACILITIES .......................................................... 32 Storm Drain Demand 32
EDU Generation by New Development 32
Planned Facilities 33
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 34
Fee Schedule 35

8. WATER FACILITIES.................................................................... 36 Water Demand 36
EDU Generation by New Development 36
Facility Needs and Costs 37
Cost per EDU 38
Fee Schedule 38

9. WASTEWATER FACILITIES .......................................................... 40 Wastewater Demand 40
EDU Generation by New Development 40
Facility Needs and Costs 41
Cost per EDU 42
Fee Schedule 43

10. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS............................................................ 44 Compliance with AB 602 44
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 44
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 44 66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot 45
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 45

11. IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................... 46 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 46
Inflation Adjustment 46
Reporting Requirements 46
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 48

12. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS.................................................. 49 Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
iii
Purpose of Fee 49
Use of Fee Revenues 49
Benefit Relationship 49
Burden Relationship 50
Proportionality 50
Agenda Item #13.1.

1 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of St. Helena through 2040. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
▪ Public Safety Facilities
▪ Civic Facilities
▪ Transportation
▪ Park and Recreation Facilities
▪ Storm Drainage Facilities
▪ Water Facilities
▪ Wastewater Facilities
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Although growth also imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new development for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.

The City collects public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein.

The City programs development impact fee-funded capital projects through its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP allows the City to identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Facility Standards and Costs
There are three approaches used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements in this study.

The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City’s existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City’s annual CIP and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the public safety facilities, civic facilities and park and recreation facilities fees in this report.

The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
2 a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the transportation, storm drain water and wastewater facilities fees in this report.

The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where specific needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development’s fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. This approach is not used in this report.

Use of Fee Revenues
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, construction of infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment.

In that the City cannot predict with certainty how and when development within the City will occur during the 17-year planning horizon assumed in this study, the City may need to update and revise the project lists funded by the fees documented in this study. Any substitute projects should be funded within the same facility category, and the substitute projects must still benefit and have a relationship to new development. The City could identify any changes to the projects funded by the impact fees when it updates the CIP. The impact fees could also be updated if significant changes to the projects funded by the fees are anticipated.

Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City’s identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
3 Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Fee Summary
Land Use
Public
Safety
Civic
Facilities
Transportation
Facilities Parks
Storm
Drainage Water Wastewater
Total -
Maximum
Justified
Residential - per Sq. Ft, $ 1.30 $ 1.60 $ 0.81 $ 3.77 $ 0.61 $ 1.41 $ 1.57 $ 11.07 Nonresidential - Fee per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 1.30 $ 1.60 $ 5.10 $ - $ 1.90 $ 0.86 $ 1.87 $ 12.63 Office 2.00 2.46 4.06 - 1.58 0.86 1.87 12.83
Industrial 0.71 0.87 2.43 - 1.90 0.73 1.65 8.29
Hotel Room 1.37 1.69 5.46 - 2.64 2.40 5.50 19.07
Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.6, 5.5, 6.7, 7.5, 8.5 and 9.5.

Table E.2: Current Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
Public
Safety
Civic
Facilities
Transportation
Facilities Parks
Storm
Drainage Water Wastewater Total
Residential - per Sq. Ft,
Single Family Unit $ 2.41 $ 3.61 $ 3.59 $ 10.46 $ 2.01 $ 3.14 $ 1.64 $ 26.86 Multifamily Unit 2.41 3.61 4.14 17.05 1.95 2.72 1.91 33.79 Nonresidential - Fee per Square Foot
Commercial $ 2.41 $ 3.61 $ 28.49 $ - $ 3.21 $ 5.19 $ 2.20 $ 45.11 Office 2.41 3.61 8.08 - 3.21 3.19 1.62 22.12
Industrial 2.41 3.61 5.51 - 3.21 3.89 1.82 20.45
Hotel Room 2.41 3.61 11.53 - 2.72 5.23 2.19 27.69
Source: City of St. Helena.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
4 Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in St. Helena.

They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown in Table E.3, approximately $72.3 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop if fees are adopted at the maximum justified fee level. The “Additional Funding Required” column shows non-impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development. To the extent that the City adopts fees that are lower than the maximum justified amount, the non-fee funding requirements may increase, depending on the fee category and methodology.

The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Fee Category
Net Project
Cost
Projected
Impact Fee
Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Public Safety $ 3,730,662 $ 3,730,662 $ -
Civic Facilities 4,589,658 4,589,658 -
Transportation Facilities 18,799,000 4,060,584 14,738,416 Parks 7,771,000 7,771,000 -
Storm Drainage 19,273,000 2,356,359 16,916,641
Water 18,539,000 1,757,577 16,781,423
Wastewater 26,683,341 2,854,058 23,829,283
Total $ 99,385,661 $ 27,119,898 $ 72,265,763
Sources: Tables 3.4, 4.5, 5.3, 6.5, 7.3, 8.3 and 9.3.

Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Agenda Item #13.1.

5 1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of St. Helena. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
▪ Public Facilities Financing in California;
▪ Study Objectives;
▪ Fee Program Maintenance;
▪ Study Methodology; and
▪ Organization of the Report.

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
▪ The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; ▪ Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and
▪ Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.

Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its own way.” This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.

Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Policy LU1.1 of the General Plan states: “Require new development to occur within well-defined boundaries and be consistent with the ability to provide urban services. New development should mitigate infrastructure impacts by using sustainable, best management practices in green building and stormwater management and paying its share of development impact fees, while minimizing impacts on sewer, water, energy, and natural resources.”
The primary purpose of this report is to update the City’s impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The maximum justified fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policies stated above.

The City collects public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
6 St. Helena is forecast to see moderate growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2040. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, St. Helena has decided to continue to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds its share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and facility plans to update the City’s existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.

Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the Engineering News-Record, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 11.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 11.

Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:

1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;

2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;

3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;

4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;

5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and

6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects.

The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.

Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
7 ▪ Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. ▪ Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City’s facility design standards.
▪ Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.

New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.

This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.

There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs in this study: the existing inventory method, the planned facilities method, and the system plan method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.

The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:

Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:

Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. The existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual CIP and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the public safety facilities, civic facilities and park and recreation facilities fees in this report.

Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:

Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the = cost per unit of demand
= cost per unit of demand
Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
8 former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is expansion of an existing library building and book collection, which will be needed only if new development occurs, but which, if built, will in part benefit existing development, as well.

Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the transportation, storm drain water and wastewater facilities fees in this report.

System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:

Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.

The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.

Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in Comprehensive Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.

This approach is not used in this report.

Organization of the Report
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.

Chapters 3 through 9 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
▪ Public Safety Facilities
▪ Civic Facilities
▪ Transportation
▪ Park and Recreation Facilities
▪ Storm Drainage Facilities
▪ Water Facilities
▪ Wastewater Facilities
Chapter 10 describes how this nexus studies complies with the requirements of AB 602.

Chapter 11 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 12. = cost per unit of demand
Agenda Item #13.1.

9 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2023 base year and a planning horizon of 2040.

Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
▪ The estimate of existing development in 2023 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. ▪ The estimate of total development at the 2040 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. ▪ Estimates of growth from 2023 through 2040 are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.

The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.

Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types for which impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. ▪ Residential Dwelling Units: All residential dwelling units, including detached and attached one-unit dwellings and all multifamily dwellings including apartments, duplexes and condominiums.
▪ Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and service development ▪ Office: All general, professional, and medical office development ▪ Industrial: All warehouse, distribution, manufacturing, and other industrial development.
▪ Hotel: All commercial lodging development.

Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both multifamily and commercial uses. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type.

The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use. If a project results in the intensification of use, at its discretion, the City can charge the project the difference in fees between the existing low intensity use and the future high intensity use.

Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units
The California State Legislature recently amended requirements on local agencies for the imposition of development impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADU) with Assembly Bill AB 68 in 2021. The amendment to California Government Code §65852.2(f)(2) stipulates that local agencies may not impose any impact fees on ADU less than 750 square feet. ADU greater than 750 square feet can be charged impact fees in proportion to the size of the primary dwelling unit.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
10 Calculating Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units For ADUs greater than 750 square feet, impact fees can be charged as a percentage of the single family impact fee. The formula is:

𝐴𝐷𝑈 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑡
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑡
× 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐹𝑒𝑒 = 𝐴𝐷𝑈 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐹𝑒𝑒
In the case of an 800 square foot ADU and a 1,600 square foot primary residence, the impact fees would be 50 percent (800 square feet / 1,600 square feet = 50%) of the single family dwelling unit fee.

Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in St. Helena, both in 2023 and in 2040. The base year estimates of household residents and dwelling units comes from the California Department of Finance. The 2040 projection of residents was identified in Table ES-1 from the St. Helena General Plan Update EIR.

The projection of total dwelling units in 2040 is based on data from Table ES-1 of the St. Helena General Plan Update EIR, allocated to single family and multifamily based on current proportions.

Base year employees were estimated based on the latest data from the US Census’ OnTheMap application and exclude 88 local government (public administration) employees. Total projected workers in 2040 are identified in Table ES-2 of the St. Helena General Plan Update EIR dated June 8, 2016. The proportion of workers by land use is held consistent with current estimates.

The estimates of nonresidential building square feet were estimated by dividing employee counts by the occupancy density factors presented in the following table.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
11 Table 2.1: Existing and New Development
2023 2040 Increase
Residents1
5,212 6,600 1,388
Dwelling Units2
Single Family 2,018 2,190 172
Multifamily 838 910 72
Total 2,856 3,100 244
Building Square Feet (000s)3
Commercial 782 1,108 326
Office 222 315 93
Industrial 1,536 2,177 641
Total 2,540 3,599 1,059
Employment4
Commercial 1,657 2,348 691
Office 725 1,027 302
Industrial 1,782 2,525 743
Total 4,164 5,900 1,736
1 Current household population from California Department of Finance (DOF). 2040 estimate based on Table ES-1 from the St. Helena General Plan Update EIR.
3 Estimates of square footage estimated by dividing employees by occupancy density factors.

Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2023; Draft Environmental Impact Report for the St. Helena General Plan Update (2018); U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services.
4 Total, less local government (public administration) w orkers identified by the U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov for 2020, the latest data available. Total projected w orkers in 2040 identified in Table ES-2 of the St. Helena General Plan Update EIR. Proportion of w orkers by land use held consistent w ith current estimates.
2 Current values from DOF. Projection total for 2040 based on Table ES-1 of the St. Helena General Plan Update EIR, allocated to single family and multifamily based on current proportions.

Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.

Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.

The occupancy factors are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factors are based on data for St. Helena from the 2021 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey, the most recent data Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
12 available. The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density Assumptions
Residential Dwelling Unit 1.85 Residents per Dwelling Unit Nonresidential
Commercial 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office 3.26 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Hotel 0.56 Employees per Room
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Willdan Financial Services.

Agenda Item #13.1.

13 3. Public Safety Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of public safety facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the existing inventory facilities standard of public safety facilities in the City of St. Helena to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
Public safety facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for public safety facilities.

While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for public safety facilities.

Table 3.1: Public Safety Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2023) 5,212 4,164 6,503
New Development (2023-2040) 1,388 1,736 1,926
Total (2040) 6,600 5,900 8,429
Weighting factor 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Facility Inventory
The City’s public safety facilities inventory is comprised of a fire station, various vehicles and apparatus, and the police facility tenant improvements at Napa Valley College. The City built out space for police functions and general government uses at Napa Valley College. A share of the cost of those tenant improvements is listed here based on the proportion of the space used for police functions versus general government functions. The value of these facilities was identified in recent appraisals of the specific facilities commissioned by the City. The value of the fire apparatus was provided by the fire department. The total cost of tenant improvements at Napa Valley College was provided by the City. In total the City owns over $12.6 million worth of public safety facilities. Table 3.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of public safety facilities.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
14 Table 3.2: Existing Public Safety Facilities Inventory Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Value
Fire Station Building
Fire Station Building1 15,420 Sq. ft. $ 7,888,600
Land2 1.7 Acres $ 6,803,300 1,094,000
Subtotal $ 8,982,600
Vehicles and Apparatus
Aerial Ladder Truck $ 1,500,000
Type I Engine 800,000
Type I Engine 800,000
Subtotal $ 3,100,000
Napa Valley College
Tenant Improvements 2,280 Sq. Ft. $ 226 $ 514,731
Total - Public Safety Facilities $12,597,331
Source: A Restricted Appraisal Report of Fire Station, Ward Levy Appraisal Group, Inc., 2017.; City of St. Helena; ENR, 2023; BLS CPI-U, 2023; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Land value from appriasal adjusted for inflation from 2017 to August 2023 using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
1 Building values from appriasal adjusted from 2017 to August 2023 using the Engineering New s record's Building Cost Index
4 Approximately 22.8% of cost of tenant improvements allocated to public safety facilities impact fee based on square footage for police uses vs. general government uses.

Cost Allocation
Table 3.3 shows the calculation of the existing facilities standard per capita for public safety facilities. This cost is calculated by dividing the total existing value of all public safety facilities by the existing service population. The cost per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of

0.31 to determine the cost per worker.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
15 Table 3.3: Public Safety Facilities Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities $ 12,597,331
Existing Service Population 6,503
Cost per Capita $ 1,937
Facility Standard per Resident $ 1,937
Facility Standard per Worker1 600
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use public safety facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of public safety facilities to serve new development. Table 3.4 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 3.1. The City should program public safety facilities fee revenue to capacity expanding projects annually through its CIP and budget process.

Table 3.4: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita $ 1,937
Growth in Service Population (2023- 2040) 1,926
Fee Revenue $ 3,730,662
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 3.5 shows the maximum justified public safety facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
16 charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 3.5: Maximum Justified Public Safety Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average G H = (F-G)/G Cost Per Admin Fee per Current Percent
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.3 Fee Difference Residential Dwelling Unit $ 1,937 1.85 $ 3,583 $ 72 $ 3,655 $ 1.30 $ 2.41 (46.1%) Nonresidential
Commercial $ 600 2.12 $ 1,272 $ 25 $ 1,297 $ 1.30 $ 2.41 (46.1%) Office 600 3.26 1,956 39 1,995 2.00 2.41 (17.0%)
Industrial 600 1.16 696 14 710 0.71 2.41 (70.5%)
Hotel 600 0.56 336 7 343 1.37 2.41 (43.1%)
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 3 Assumes an average of 2,802 square feet per dw elling unit based on City building permit data from 2011 to 2020.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.3.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Agenda Item #13.1.

17 4. Civic Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of civic facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the system standard of civic facilities in the City of St. Helena to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
Public safety facilities serve both residents, visitors, and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents, visitors, and workers.

Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for civic facilities. Residents and visitors are assumed to create an equal amount of demand for civic facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for civic facilities.

Table 4.1: Civic Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2023) 5,212 4,164 6,503
New Development (2023-2040) 1,388 1,736 1,926
Total (2040) 6,600 5,900 8,429
Weighting factor 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Facilities Inventory
The City’s civic facilities inventory is comprised of the public works corporation yard, the City library and tenant improvements at Napa Valley College. The City built out space for police functions and general government uses at Napa Valley College. A share of the cost of those tenant improvements is listed here based on the proportion of the space used for general government functions versus police functions. The value of these facilities was identified in recent appraisals of the specific facilities commissioned by the City. Note that City Hall is excluded from this table, since that facility is not being used for government purposes. In total the City owns $15.5 million worth of civic facilities. Table 4.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of civic facilities.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
18 Table 4.2: Existing Civic Facilities Inventory
Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Value
Public Works Corporation Yard
Building1 5,700 Sq. ft. $ 212 $ 1,208,400
Land2 3.98 Acres 426,229 1,696,392
Subtotal $ 2,904,792
Library
Building1 15,930 Sq. ft. $ 424 $ 6,754,320
Land3 0.92 Acres - -
Subtotal $ 6,754,320
Carnegie Building
Building1 5,267 Sq. ft. $ 777 $ 4,092,459
Land3 0.13 Acres - -
Napa Valley College
Tenant Improvements4 7,736 Sq. ft. $ 226 $ 1,746,473
Total Value - Existing Civic Facilities $ 15,498,044
3 Per appriasal, land value included in the building value.

Source: A Restricted Appraisal Report of the St. Helena Public Library, A Restricted Appraisal Report of the Public Works Corporation Yard, A Restricted Appraisal Reportof the Carnegie Building, Ward Levy Appraisal Group, Inc., 2017; ENR, 2023; BLS CPI-U, 2023; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Building values from appriasal adjusted from 2017 to August 2023 using the Engineering New s record's Building Cost Index
2 Land value from appriasal adjusted for inflation from 2017 to August 2023 using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
4 Approximately 77.2% of cost of tenant improvements allocated to civic center impact fee based on square footage for general government uses vs. police uses.

Cost Allocation
Table 4.4 shows the calculation of the existing facilities standard per capita for civic facilities. This cost is calculated by dividing the total existing value of all civic facilities by the existing service population. The cost per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the cost per worker.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
19 Table 4.3: Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 15,498,044
Existing Service Population 6,503
Cost per Capita $ 2,383
Facility Standard per Resident $ 2,383
Facility Standard per Worker1 739
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use civic facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of civic facilities to serve new development. Table

4.4 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 4.1. The City should program civic center fee revenue to capacity expanding projects annually through its CIP and budget process.

Table 4.4: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita $ 2,383
Growth in Service Population (2023- 2040) 1,926
Fee Revenue $ 4,589,658
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 4.5 shows the maximum justified civic facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
20 Table 4.5: Maximum Justified Civic Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average G H = (F-G)/G Cost Per Admin Fee per Current Percent
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.3 Fee Difference Residential Dwelling Unit $ 2,383 1.85 $ 4,409 $ 88 $ 4,497 $ 1.60 $ 3.61 (55.7%) Nonresidential
Commercial $ 739 2.12 $ 1,567 $ 31 $ 1,598 $ 1.60 $ 3.61 (55.7%) Office 739 3.26 2,409 48 2,457 2.46 3.61 (31.9%)
Industrial 739 1.16 857 17 874 0.87 3.61 (75.8%)
Hotel 739 0.56 414 8 422 1.69 3.61 (53.2%)
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 3 Assumes an average of 2,802 square feet per dw elling unit based on City building permit data from 2011 to 2020.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.4.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Agenda Item #13.1.

21 5. Transportation Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for transportation facilities to accommodate new development. The chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee for funding of these facilities.

Trip Demand
The need for transportation facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number of average daily vehicle trips, adjusted for the type of trip. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of street improvements across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips.

The two types of trips adjustments made to trip generation rates to calculate trip demand are described below:
▪ Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass-by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work.
▪ The trip generation rate is adjusted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system.

These adjustments allow for a holistic quantification of trip demand that takes trip purpose and length into account for fee calculation purposes.

Table 5.1 shows the calculation of trip demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The trip rates come from ITE. The trip length assumptions come from MTC. And the pass-by assumptions come from SANDAG. The surveys provide some of the most comprehensive databases available of trip generation rates, pass-by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
22 Table 5.1: Trip Rate Adjustment Factors
Primary
Trips1
Diverted
Trips1
Total
Excluding
Pass-by1
Average
Trip
Length2
Adjustment
Factor3ITE Category
Average
Daily
Trips4
Trip
Demand
Factor5
A B C = A + B D E = C x D F G = E x F
Residential
Single Family 86% 11% 97% 6.79 0.95 Single Family Housing (210) 9.43 8.96 Multifamily 86% 11% 97% 6.79 0.95 Apartment (220) 6.74 6.40 Nonresidential
Commercial 47% 31% 78% 4.43 0.50 Shopping Center (820) 37.01 18.51 Office 77% 19% 96% 9.81 1.36 General Office Building (710) 10.84 14.74 Industrial 79% 19% 98% 12.71 1.81 General Light Industrial (110) 4.87 8.81 Hotel (per Room) 58% 38% 96% 4.43 0.62 Hotel (310) 7.99 4.95 3 The trip adjustment factor equals the percent of non-pass-by trips multiplied by the average trip length and divided by the systemw ide average trip length of 4 Trips per dw elling unit or per 1,000 building square feet. 5 The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the average daily trips.

Sources: Travel Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area 1990 - 2030, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2005; San Diego Association of Governments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002; Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Percent of total trips. Primary trips are trips w ith no midw ay stops, or "links". Diverted trips are linked trips w hose distance adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass-by trips are links that do not add more than one mile to the total trip. 2 In miles. Residential based on "Total personal travel," Commercial based on "Home-Based Shop/Other," Office based on "Home-Based Work, Income Quartile 1" and Industrial based on "Home-Based Work, Income Quartile 4" trip lengths from Travel Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area 1990 - 2030, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2005.

Trip Demand Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is 2040. Table 5.2 lists the 2023 and 2040 land use assumptions used in this study. The trip demand factors calculated are multiplied by the existing and future dwelling units and building square feet to determine the increase in trip demand attributable to new development.

Table 5.2: Land Use Scenario and Trip Demand
Trip
Land Use
Demand
Factor
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Residential
Single Family 8.96 2,018 18,081 2,190 19,622 172 1,541
Multifamily 6.4 838 5,363 910 5,824 72 461
Subtotal 2,856 23,444 3,100 25,446 244 2,002
Nonresidential
Commercial 18.51 782 14,467 1,108 20,501 326 6,034
Office 14.74 222 3,278 315 4,644 93 1,366
Industrial 8.81 1,536 13,534 2,177 19,177 641 5,643
Subtotal 2,540 31,279 3,599 44,322 1,059 13,043
Total 54,723 69,768 15,045
78% 100% 22%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 5.1.
2023 2040 Growth 2023 to 2040
Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
23 Planned Facilities
Table 5.3 lists the transportation projects included in this analysis. Each of the projects was identified in the City’s prior impact fee study or in the City’s most recent CIP. Projects from the prior impact fee study were completed have been removed from this project list.

The table also allocates a share of each project to new development. Since the projects will benefit both existing development and new development, new development’s proportional share of trip generation at the planning horizon (identified in Table 5.2) is used as new development’s cost allocation. In total, $4.1 million of transportation project costs are allocated to new development through this impact fee.

Table 5.3: Planned Transportation Facilities and Cost Allocation Project Name
Total Project
Cost (2023)1
Allocation To
New
Development
Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
Spring Street Bike Lane Striping $ 31,000 21.6% $ 6,696 Charter Oak/Main Street (Hwy 29) Intersection Improvements 652,200 21.6% 108,000 Mills Lane Safety Improvements 1,956,600 21.6% 324,000
Pope Street/Napa River/Silverado Trail - New Bridge and Striping 4,174,100 21.6% 691,200 Pratt Avenue/Napa River/Silverado Trail - New Bridge and Striping 3,000,100 21.6% 496,800 Oak Avenue Extension - Charter Oak to Mitchell 2,347,900 21.6% 388,800 Starr Avenue Extension - Hunt Ave to Adams St 804,800 21.6% 133,272 Adams Street Extension - end to Starr Ave 1,110,100 21.6% 183,816 Fulton Lane Safety Improvements - widening with bike lanes and pedestrian access 2,869,700 21.6% 475,200
New North-South Collector (Extend College Ave, Starr Ave, or Allison Ave from Mills Ln to Pope St 2,478,400 21.6% 410,400 New East-West Collector (Extend Adams St or Mills Ln to Silverado Tr) 3,782,800 21.6% 626,400
Pratt Avenue/Main Street (Hwy 29) Intersection Improvements 652,200 21.6% 108,000 Deer Park/Main Street (Hwy 29) Intersection Improvements 652,200 21.6% 108,000 Total $24,512,100 $ 4,060,584
1 2016 costs adjusted to 2023 dollars using the Engineering New s Record's Construction Cost Index.

Source: City of St. Helena; City of St. Helena 5-Year Capital Improvements Program FY 2021-22 to FY 2025-26; Table 5.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount, representing the value of facilities, divided by a measure of demand. In this case, all fees are first calculated as a replacement cost per trip demand unit. Then these amounts are translated into housing unit (cost per unit) and employment space (cost per 1,000 square feet or room) fees by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.

Table 5.4 displays the calculation of the cost the cost per trip demand unit. The net costs allocated to new development are divided by the growth in trip demand from Table 5.2 to determine the cost per trip attributable to new development. This figure drives the fee calculation.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Update
24 Table 5.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs $ 4,060,584 Growth in Daily Trips 15,045
Cost per Trip $ 270
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Schedule
Table 5.5 shows the maximum justified transportation facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to these amounts. The maximum justified fees are based on the cost per trip identified in. Table 5.4. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 5.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development. The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 5.5: Maximum Justified Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average G H = (F-G)/G Trip
Land Use
Cost Per
Trip
Demand
Factor
Base
Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Fee per Sq.

Ft.3
Current
Fee4
Percent
Difference
Residential Dwelling Unit 5 $ 270 8.20 $ 2,214 $ 44 $ 2,258 $ 0.81 $ 3.59 (77.4%) Nonresidential
Commercial $ 270 18.51 $ 4,998 $ 100 $ 5,098 $ 5.10 $28.49 (82.1%) Office 270 14.74 3,980 80 4,060 4.06 8.08 (49.8%)
Industrial 270 8.81 2,379 48 2,427 2.43 5.51 (56.0%)
Hotel 270 4.95 1,337 27 1,364 5.46 11.53 (52.7%)
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 3 Assumes an average of 2,802 square feet per dw elling unit based on City building permit data from 2011 to 2020. 4 Current fee show n is the single family fee per square foot. 5 Average trip demand factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.4, Willdan Financial Services. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Agenda Item #13.1.

25 6. Parks and Recreation Facilities
The purpose of the parks and recreation facilities impact fee is to fund the parks and recreation facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of parks and recreation facilities per capita.

Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in St. Helena primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park and recreation facilities.

Table 6.1: Park and Recreation
Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 5,212
New Development (2023-2040) 1,388
Total (2040) 6,600
Source: Table 2.1.

Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory
The City of St. Helena maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table

6.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2020. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the inventory includes a total of 27.43 acres of improved parkland, and 15 acres of unimproved open space.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
26 Table 6.2: Parkland Inventory (acres)
Park Land
Mini Parks
Baldwin Park 0.76
Lewis Station 0.13
Lyman Park 0.89
Mary Fryer Park 0.84
Mennen Park 0.17
St. Helena Skate Park 0.41
Stephen C. McCullagh Park 0.14
Stonebridge Park 0.75
Subtotal 4.09
Neighborhood Parks
Jacob Meilly Park 5.42
Wappo Park 6.65
Subtotal 12.07
Community Parks
Crane Park 11.27
Open Space
Lower Reservoir 15.00
Total 42.43
Sources: City of St. Helena Draft General Plan
Update 2040, Table 12.1 and the City of St. Helena
Public Works Department.

Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 6.3 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in St. Helena. The land cost assumption was based on an analysis of land sales comparison since September 2018 of parcels 20 acres or less in size within the City of St. Helena using data from CoStar. An estimate of $423,700 per acre for standard parkland improvements is based on the City’s prior impact fee study and has been adjusted for inflation to 2023 dollars. In total, it costs approximately $837,700 to acquire and improve an acre of parkland in St. Helena.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
27 Table 6.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre
Share of
Total Costs
Land Acquisition $ 414,000 49%
Improvements 423,700 51%
Total Cost per Acre $ 837,700 100%
Sources: Costar.com; Willdan Financial Services.

Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded park facilities. Information regarding the City’s existing inventory of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.

The most common measure in calculating new development’s demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on a jurisdiction’s existing inventory of park facilities, or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.
1 Quimby Act Standard
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three-acre minimum if the jurisdiction’s existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).

The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction’s adopted general or specific plan standards.

The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.

The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated.

The Quimby Act allows use of in-lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.

Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements including recreation facilities, and rehabilitation of existing park and recreation facilities. The Quimby Act generally requires that fees be used for neighborhood and community park acreage to serve the subdivision, except in limited circumstances.

City of St. Helena Park Facilities Standards
Table 6.4 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents based on the type of parkland. In total the City has an existing parkland standard of 5.26 acres per 1,000 residents, which is greater than the maximum Quimby standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents.

The City’s General Plan Policy PR1.1 states, “Retain the park standard from the 1993 General 1 California Government Code §66477.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
28 Plan of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, while striving for the nationally recommended standard of 10.5 acres per 1,000 residents.”
Fees for subdivisions are calculated at the maximum Quimby standard of 5.0 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. Fees for infill development charged under the Mitigation Fee Act will also be charged at the 5.26 acre per 1,000 resident standard in order to comply with the General Plan policy stated above. As such Quimby Act fee in-lieu of land dedication and the Mitigation Fee Act fee for land acquisition will be charged at different amounts per square foot.

The City must track the fee revenue separately and ensure that the fees are used for the purpose for which they were collected.

Table 6.4 also shows the City’s existing open space standard. This is calculated separately from the parkland standard. The current open space standard is 2.88 acres per 1,000 residents.

Table 6.4: Parkland Standards
Parkland
Total Park Acreage 27.43
Service Population (2023) 5,212
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 5.26
Open Space
Total Acreage 15.00
Service Population (2023) 5,212
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 2.88
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 6.5 shows the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the existing standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act, new development must fund the purchase and improvement of between 6.94 and 7.30 parkland acres.

The facility standards and resulting fees under the Quimby Act are lower because development will be charged to provide 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 5.26 acres of improvements, whereas development not subject to the Quimby Act will be charged to provide

5.26 acres of both parkland and improvements per 1,000 residents. Since the exact amount of development that will be subject to the Quimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 6.5 presents the range of total facility costs that may be incurred depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act. Also included in Table 6.5 is an estimate of the amount of open space needed to maintain the City’s existing open space standard.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
29 Table 6.5: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation Parkland Improvements Total
Parkland (Mitigation Fee Act), Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act) 1 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 5.26 5.26
Service Population Growth (2023 to 2040) B 1,388 1,388
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 7.30 7.30
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 414,000 $ 423,700
Subtotal E = C x D $3,022,000 $ 3,093,000 $ 6,115,000
Parkland (Quimby Act), Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act) 1 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 5.00 5.26
Service Population Growth (2023 to 2040) B 1,388 1,388
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 6.94 7.30
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 414,000 $ 423,700
Subtotal E = C x D $2,873,000 $ 3,093,000 $ 5,966,000
Open Space
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 2.88
Service Population Growth (2023 to 2040) B 1,388
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 4.00
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 414,000
Subtotal E = C x D $1,656,000 $ 1,656,000
Total - All Infill Development $ 7,771,000
Total - All Subdivision Development $ 7,622,000
Note: Totals have been rounded to the thousands.
1 Quimby Act fees in lieu of land dedication only apply to subdivisions. Infill development charged under the Mitigation Fee Act.

Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4.

Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 6.6 shows the cost per capita of providing new park facilities at the Quimby standard, and the existing facility standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements.

The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of four fees. Fee revenue from each fee should be placed into a segregated account so that it can only be spent for the purpose that it was collected:
• A Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of parkland dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions. Quimby fee revenue can also be used for rehabilitation of neighborhood and community parks serving the subdivision that paid the fee.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for parkland acquisition. This fee is payable by residential development not occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for parkland improvements. This fee is payable by all residential development.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
30 • A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for open space acquisition. This fee is payable by all residential development.

A development project pays either the Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition, not both. All development projects pay the Mitigation Fee Act Fees for park improvements and open space acquisition.

Table 6.6: Park Facilities Investment Per Capita
Improvements
Calculation Quimby Fee OR Impact Fee AND Impact Fee
Parks
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 414,000 $ 414,000 $ 423,700 Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 5.00 5.26 5.26 Total Cost Per 1,000 capita C = A x B $ 2,070,000 $2,177,600 $ 2,228,700 Cost Per Resident D = C / 1,000 $ 2,070 $ 2,178 $ 2,229 Open Space
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 414,000
Existing Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 2.88
Total Cost Per 1,000 capita C = A x B $1,192,300
Cost Per Resident D = C / 1,000 $ 1,192
Sources: Tables 6.3 and 6.4.

Land
Use of Fee Revenue
As noted above this chapter identifies four fees related to parks. Revenue must be deposited into four separate accounts. Revenue collected under the Quimby Act can be used to acquire neighborhood and community parkland serving the subdivision that paid the fees. It can also be used to rehabilitate existing neighborhood and community parkland serving the subdivision that paid the fees.

Revenue collected under the Mitigation Fee Act for land acquisition, park improvements or open space must be collected in separate accounts and can only be used for the purpose it was collected.

The City plans to use this fee revenue to acquire parkland and open space and construct improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue collected under the Mitigation Fee Act to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development. The City should program fee revenue to capacity expanding projects annually through its CIP and budget process.

Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for parkland acquisition, open space acquisition and parkland improvements.

These investment factors (shown in Table 6.6) are based on the unit cost estimates and the City’s existing facility standards.

Table 6.7 shows the maximum justified park and recreation facilities fee based on the existing standard per capita under the Quimby Act and under the existing park standard under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. The investment per capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
31 using the occupancy density factor from Table 2.2. The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 6.7: Maximum Justified Park and Recreation Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average G H = (F-G)/G Cost Per Base Admin Fee per Current Percent
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.3 Fee4 Difference Infill Development
Parkland5 $ 2,178 1.85 $ 4,029 $ 81 $ 4,110 $ 1.47
Improvements 2,229 1.85 4,124 82 4,206 1.50
Open Space 1,192 1.85 2,205 44 2,249 0.80
Total $ 5,599 $ 10,358 $ 207 $ 10,565 $ 3.77 $10.46 (64.0%) Subdivisions
Land Dedication5 $ 2,070 1.85 $ 3,830 $ 77 $ 3,907 $ 1.39 Improvements 2,229 1.85 4,124 82 4,206 1.50
Open Space 1,192 1.85 2,205 44 2,249 0.80
Total $ 5,491 $ 10,159 $ 203 $ 10,362 $ 3.69 $10.46 (64.7%) 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit dw elling unit.
3 Assumes an average of 2,802 square feet per dw elling unit based on City building permit data from 2011 to 2020. 4 Current fee show n is the single family fee per square foot.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.6.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 5 This component is charged under the Quimby Act for development occurring in subdivisions at a 5.0 acre standard, or under the Mitigation Fee Act for infill development at a 5.26 acre standard.

Agenda Item #13.1.

32 7. Storm Drain Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for storm drain facilities to accommodate growth within the City of St. Helena. This projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified it the City’s Integrated Utility Master Plan, 2021. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a storm drain fee to fund storm drain facilities that serve new development.

Storm Drain Demand
Most new development generates storm water runoff that must be controlled through storm drain facilities by increasing the amount of land that is impervious to precipitation. Table 7.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on impervious surface coefficient by land use category. The impervious surface coefficients are based on from the City’s prior impact fee study. EDU factors relate demand for storm drain facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit.

Table 7.1: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent
Dwelling Units
Impervious
Surface Area
per DU or KSF1
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)2
Residential
Single Family 3,800 1.00
Multifamily 1,950 0.51
Nonresidential
Commercial 3,600 0.95
Office 3,000 0.79
Industrial 3,600 0.95
Hotel 1,250 0.33
Sources: City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Report (2013); Willdan Financial Services.
2 EDUs per dw elling unit for residential development and per thousand square feet for nonresidential development.
1 Based on estimates in the City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Study Report (2013). Storm drain assumption based on Willdan experience w ith other local clients.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 7.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. New development will generate 1,200 new EDUs, representing 19.9 percent of total storm drain demand in 2040.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
33 Table 7.2: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU
Factor1
Existing
(DU/KSF)
Projected
Growth
(DU/KSF)
Total
(DU/KSF)
Existing
EDUs
Growth in
EDUs Total
Existing City
Residential
Single Family 1.00 2,018 172 2,190 2,018 172 2,190
Multifamily 0.51 838 72 910 427 37 464
Subtotal 2,856 244 3,100 2,445 209 2,654
Nonresidential
Commercial 0.95 782 326 1,108 743 310 1,053
Office 0.79 222 93 315 176 73 249
Industrial 0.95 1,536 641 2,177 1,459 608 2,068
Subtotal 2,540 1,059 3,599 2,378 991 3,369
Total 4,823 1,200 6,023

80.1% 19.9% 100.0%
1 Per dw elling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential).

Sources: Table 2.1 and 7.1; Willdan Financial Services
Planned Facilities
Table 7.3 identifies the planned storm drain facilities to be funded by the fee. The new storm drain facilities were all identified in the City’s Draft Integrated Master Plan. Since drainage projects will benefit both existing development and new development, capacity expanding projects are allocated to new development based on new development’s share of storm drain demand at the planning horizon (See Table 7.2). Projects that do not expand capacity are not allocated to the impact fee.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
34 Table 7.3: Storm Drain Capital Improvements
Project
No. Project Name
Existing
Size/Type
Proposed
Size/Type
Proposed
Amount
Total Project
Cost
Allocation To
New
Development
Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
SD-1A Oak Ave SD 17-24 30 1,880 $ 1,154,000 19.9% $ 229,646 SD-1B Oak Ave SD 24 36 980 756,000 19.9% 150,444
SD-1C Tainter St SD 10 15 330 109,000 19.9% 21,691
SD-1D Kearney St SD 0 12 430 133,000 19.9% 26,467
SD-1E Adams St SD 12 18 390 139,000 19.9% 27,661
SD-2A Main St SD 12 18 590 211,000 19.9% 41,989
SD-2B Main St SD 12-15 24 960 469,000 19.9% 93,331
SD-2C Spring St SD 6 12 130 40,000 19.9% 7,960
SD-2D Hunt Ave SD 6 15 170 56,000 19.9% 11,144
SD-2E Money Way SD 4 12 140 43,000 19.9% 8,557
SD-3A Pope St SD 12 18 340 121,000 19.9% 24,079
SD-3B Pope St SD 18 24 470 230,000 19.9% 45,770
SD-4 Spring Mountain SD 0 12 320 98,000 19.9% 19,502
SD-5A Mills Ln SD 0 30 1,710 1,049,000 19.9% 208,751
SD-5B Mills Ln SD 0 36 1,860 1,434,000 19.9% 285,366
SD-5C Mills Ln SD 0 42 1,960 1,787,000 19.9% 355,613
SD-5D Mills Ln Lateral SD 0 12 670 206,000 19.9% 40,994 SD-5E Mills Ln Lateral SD 0 12 680 209,000 19.9% 41,591 SD-5F Mills Ln/Main SD 18 30 160 98,000 19.9% 19,502
SD-6A Crane/Sulphur Springs SD 0 18 4,770 1,701,000 19.9% 338,499 SD-6B Main St/Vintage SD 0 24 1,610 787,000 19.9% 156,613 SD-7A Church SD 0 24 320 156,000 19.9% 31,044
SD-7B Railroad Ave SD 0 15 560 186,000 19.9% 37,014
SD-8 Allison Ave SD 18 24 390 191,000 19.9% 38,009
SD-9 Elmhurst Ave SD 10 15 380 126,000 19.9% 25,074
SD-10 Madrona Ave SD 12 15 280 93,000 19.9% 18,507
SD-11 Spring St SD 15 24 270 133,000 19.9% 26,467
SD-12 Crane Ave SD 15 12 410 126,000 19.9% 25,074
SDRR-1 Storm Drain Rehabilitation
and Replacement 15 24 15,191
7,432,000 0% -
$19,273,000 $ 2,356,359
Sources: City of St Helena Draft Integrated Utility Master Plan Storm Drainage Capital Improvement Plan Summary; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
This chapter uses the planned facilities approach to calculate the storm drain facilities cost standard. The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development is divided by the growth in EDUs to determine a cost standard per EDU. Table 7.4 shows the facility cost standard for storm drain facilities.

Table 7.4: Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
Cost of Planned Facilities Allocated to New Development $ 2,356,359 Growth in EDUs 1,200
Cost per EDU $ 1,964
Sources: Tables 7.2 and 7.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
35 Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for storm drain facilities is shown in Table 7.5. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU from Table 7.4 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 7.1. The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 7.5: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average G H = (F-G)/G Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2
Total
Fee1
Fee per Sq.

Ft.3
Current
Fee4
Percent
Difference
Residential Dwelling Unit 5 $ 1,964 0.86 $ 1,689 $ 34 $ 1,723 $ 0.61 $ 2.01 (69.7%) Nonresidential
Commercial $ 1,964 0.95 $ 1,866 $ 37 $ 1,903 $ 1.90 $ 3.21 (40.7%) Office 1,964 0.79 1,552 31 1,583 1.58 3.21 (50.7%)
Industrial 1,964 0.95 1,866 37 1,903 1.90 3.21 (40.7%)
Hotel 1,964 0.33 648 13 661 2.64 2.72 (2.8%)
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 3 Assumes an average of 2,802 square feet per dw elling unit based on City building permit data from 2011 to 2020. 4 Current fee show n is the single family fee per square foot. 5 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.4; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Agenda Item #13.1.

36 8. Water Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for water system facilities to accommodate growth within the City of St. Helena. This projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified it the City’s Integrated Utility Master Plan, 2021. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a water facilities impact fee to fund water facilities that serve new development.

Water Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased water demand provide the basis for calculating the water facilities fee. The need for water facilities improvements is based on the water demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of water improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 8.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates based on data from the City’s Integrated Master Plan. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit.

Table 8.1: Water Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
DU or KSF
or Hotel
Rooms
per Acre GPD per Acre
Average
Flow
Generation/

DU, KSF,
Room
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Residential
Single Family 5.00 1,280 256 1.00
Multifamily 28.00 5,280 189 0.74
Nonresidential
Commercial1 21.78 1,100 51 0.20
Office1 21.78 1,100 51 0.20
Industrial1 21.78 940 43 0.17
Hotel Rooms 30.00 1,100 37 0.14
Sources: St. Helena 2040 General Plan; Table 4.4, City of St. Helena Draft Integrated Utility Master Plan; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Nonresidential densities are based on a maximum floor-area-ratio of 0.5 for commercial, office and industrial.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 8.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. The EDU factors from Table 8.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from Table 2.1 to estimate total Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
37 EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development. New development will generate approximately 418 new EDUs through 2040, comprising 11.9% of water demand in the City at that time.

Table 8.2: Water Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units
EDU
Factor1
Existing
(DU/KSF)
Projected
Growth
(DU/KSF)
Existing
EDUs
Growth in
EDUs Total
Residential
Single Family 1.00 2,018 172 2,018 172 2,190
Multifamily 0.74 838 72 620 53 673
Subtotal 2,856 244 2,638 225 2,863
Nonresidential
Commercial 0.20 782 326 156 65 221
Office 0.20 222 93 44 19 63
Industrial 0.17 1,536 641 261 109 370
Subtotal 2,540 1,059 462 193 655
Total 3,100 418 3,518
Percent of Total 88.1% 11.9% 100.0%
1 Per dw elling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential).

Sources: Tables 2.1 and 8.1.

Facility Needs and Costs
Table 8.3 identifies the planned water facilities to be funded by the fee. The new water facilities were all identified in the City’s Integrated Master Plan. Since water facilities projects will benefit both existing development and new development, capacity expanding projects are allocated to new development based on new development’s share of water demand at the planning horizon.

Projects that are needed solely because of new development are allocated completely to the impact fee program. Projects that do not expand capacity are not allocated to the impact fee.

Finally, the Meadowood replacement tank is allocated to new development based on the excess capacity of the tank.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
38 Table 8.3: Water Facilities Costs to Serve New Development Project Name
Total Project
Cost
Allocation To
New
Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
PWTM-1 Napa Intertie Transmission Main $ 5,715,000 11.9% $ 679,042 PWTM-2 WTP Transmission Main 7,954,000 11.9% 945,074
PWFF-1 Zinfandel Ln Fireflow Improvement 144,000 11.9% 17,110 PWFF-2 Inglewood Ave Fireflow Improvement 55,000 11.9% 6,535 PWFF-3 Vintage Ave Loop 20,000 11.9% 2,376
PWFF-4 El Bonita Ave Fireflow 50,000 11.9% 5,941
PWFF-5 Charter Oak Fireflow 76,000 11.9% 9,030
PWFF-6 Crane Fireflow 139,000 11.9% 16,516
PWFF-7 Spring St Fireflow 262,000 11.9% 31,130
PWFF-8 Pine St Fireflow 65,000 11.9% 7,723
PWFF-9 Fulton Ln Fireflow 85,000 11.9% 10,099
PWFF-10 6" Hydrant Lateral Upsize 12,000 100.0% 12,000
PWFF-11 4" Hydrant Lateral Upgrades 15,000 100.0% 15,000 PWRR-1 Future Allowance for Pipeline R/R 3,947,000 0.0% - Total $18,539,000 $ 1,757,577
Source: City of St Helena Integrated Utility Master Plan Potable Water Capital Improvement Plan Summary; City of St. Helena 5-Year Capital Improvements Program FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost per EDU
Table 8.4 calculates a cost per EDU associated by dividing the total cost of projects allocated to new development identified in Table 8.3 by the growth in EDUs identified in Table 8.2.

Table 8.4: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development $ 1,757,577
Growth in EDUs 418
Cost per EDU $ 4,205
Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for water facilities is shown in Table 8.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 8.1.

The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
39 including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Table 8.5: Maximum Justified Water Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average G H = (F-G)/G Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2
Total
Fee1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Current
Fee4
Percent
Difference
Residential Dwelling Unit 5 $ 4,205 0.92 $ 3,869 $ 77 $ 3,946 $ 1.41 $ 3.14 (55.1%) Nonresidential
Commercial $ 4,205 0.20 $ 841 $ 17 $ 858 $ 0.86 $ 5.19 (83.4%) Office 4,205 0.20 841 17 858 0.86 3.19 (73.0%)
Industrial 4,205 0.17 715 14 729 0.73 3.89 (81.2%)
Hotel 4,205 0.14 589 12 601 2.40 5.23 (54.0%)
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 3 Assumes an average of 2,802 square feet per dw elling unit based on City building permit data from 2011 to 2020. 4 Current fee show n is the single family fee per square foot. 5 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Agenda Item #13.1.

40 9. Wastewater Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for wastewater facilities to accommodate growth within the City of St. Helena. This projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified it the City’s Integrated Utility Master Plan, 2021. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a wastewater facilities impact fee to fund wastewater facilities that serve new development.

Wastewater Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased wastewater demand provide the basis for calculating the wastewater facilities fee. The need for wastewater facilities improvements is based on the wastewater demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of wastewater improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 9.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates based on data from the City’s Integrated Master Plan. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit.

Table 9.1: Wastewater Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
DU or KSF or
Hotel Rooms
per Acre
GPD per
Acre
Average
Flow
Generation/

DU, KSF,
Room
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Residential
Single Family 5.00 730 146 1.00
Multifamily 28.00 1,300 46 0.32
Nonresidential
Commercial1 21.78 1,090 50 0.34
Office1 21.78 1,090 50 0.34
Industrial1 21.78 960 44 0.30
Hotel Rooms 30.00 1,090 36 0.25
Sources: St. Helena 2040 General Plan; Table 4.8, City of St. Helena Integrated Utility Master Plan; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Nonresidential densities are based on a maximum floor-area-ratio of 0.5 for commercial, office and industrial.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 9.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. The EDU factors from Table 9.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from Table 2.1 to estimate total Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
41 EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development. New development will generate approximately 529 new EDUs through 2040, comprising 14.6% of wastewater demand in the City at that time.

Table 9.2: Wastewater Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU
Factor1
Existing
(DU/KSF)
Projected
Growth
(DU/KSF)
Existing
EDUs
Growth in
EDUs Total
Residential
Single Family 1.00 2,018 172 2,018 172 2,190
Multifamily 0.32 838 72 268 23 291
Subtotal 2,856 244 2,286 195 2,481
Nonresidential
Commercial 0.34 782 326 266 111 377
Office 0.34 222 93 76 31 107
Industrial 0.30 1,536 641 461 192 653
Subtotal 2,540 1,059 802 334 1,136
Total 3,088 529 3,617
Percent of Total 85.4% 14.6% 100.0%
1 Per dw elling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential).

Sources: Tables 2.1 and 9.1.

Facility Needs and Costs
Table 9.3 identifies the planned water facilities to be funded by the fee. The new wastewater facilities were all identified in the City’s Draft Integrated Master Plan. Since wastewater facilities projects will benefit both existing development and new development, capacity expanding projects are allocated to new development based on new development’s share of wastewater demand at the planning horizon (see Table 9.2). Projects that are needed solely as a result of new development are allocated completely to the impact fee program. Projects that do not expand capacity are not allocated to the impact fee.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
42 Table 9.3: Wastewater Facilities Allocation to New Development Project Name
Total Project
Cost
Allocation To
New
Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
WWTP Phase 1 Upgrades $14,320,341 14.6% $ 2,090,770
Crinella Pump Station Upgrades 982,000 14.6% 143,372
Wet Weather Flow Monitoring 50,000 14.6% 7,300
WWTP Recycled Pipeline and Pump Station 130,000 14.6% 18,980 WWGM-1 Madrona Avenue 201,000 14.6% 29,346
WWGM-2 Railroad Avenue 512,000 14.6% 74,752
WWGM-3 Valley View Street 244,000 14.6% 35,624
WWGM-4 Mitchell Drive 245,000 14.6% 35,770
WWGM-5 Mitchell Drive & Main Street 255,000 14.6% 37,230 WWGM-6 Del Campo Court 608,000 14.6% 88,768
WWGM-7 Signorelli Circle 923,000 14.6% 134,758
WWGM-8 Adams Street 206,000 14.6% 30,076
WWGM-9 Pope Street 235,000 14.6% 34,310
WWGM-10 Birch Avenue 386,000 14.6% 56,356
WWGM-11 Main Street 88,000 14.6% 12,848
WWGM-12 Spring Street 53,000 14.6% 7,738
WWLS-1 Crinella Lift Station Odor Control Study - 0.0% - WWRR-1 CCTV Inspection Program, 1st Phase 222,000 0.0% - WWRR-2 Flow Monitoring Program 60,000 14.6% 8,760
WWRR-3 High Priority Pipeline Replacement 2,677,000 0.0% - WWRR-4 Model Update and System Analysis 50,000 14.6% 7,300 WWRR-5 CCTV Inspection, Phase 2 657,000 0.0% -
WWRR-6 Address R/R Needs from Phase 1 CCTV
Program 3,579,000 0.0% -
Total $26,683,341 $ 2,854,058
Source: City of St Helena Integrated Utility Master Plan Sew er Capital Improvement Plan Summary; City of St. Helena 5-Year Capital Improvements Program FY 2021-22 to FY 2025-26; Table 9.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development in Table 9.3 is divided by the total growth in EDUs to determine a cost per EDU. Table 9.4 displays this calculation.

Table 9.4: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development $ 2,854,058
Growth in EDUs 529
Cost per EDU $ 5,395
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
43 Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for wastewater facilities is shown in Table 9.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 9.1.

The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Table 9.5: Maximum Justified Wastewater Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average G H = (F-G)/G Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2
Total
Fee1
Fee per Sq.

Ft.3
Current
Fee4
Percent
Difference
Residential Dwelling Unit 5 $ 5,395 0.80 $ 4,316 $ 86 $ 4,402 $ 1.57 $ 3.14 (50.0%) Nonresidential
Commercial $ 5,395 0.34 $ 1,834 $ 37 $ 1,871 $ 1.87 $ 5.19 (64.0%) Office 5,395 0.34 1,834 37 1,871 1.87 3.19 (41.4%)
Industrial 5,395 0.30 1,619 32 1,651 1.65 3.89 (57.6%)
Hotel 5,395 0.25 1,349 27 1,376 5.50 5.23 5.2%
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.4; Willdan Financial Services. 3 Assumes an average of 2,802 square feet per dw elling unit based on City building permit data from 2011 to 2020. Assumes 250 square feet per hotel room.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Agenda Item #13.1.

44 10. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Four key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (5) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. 66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study’s compliance with the new requirements of AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service

1. For fees calculated under the existing standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service. These fee categories are: public safety facilities, civic facilities, and parks. The existing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per capita is shown in each corresponding chapter.

2. For fees calculated under the planned facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensure that the level of service does not fall to unacceptable levels. The fees calculated under this approach are the transportation, water, wastewater, and storm drain facilities impact fees.

Projects were identified in the City’s Integrated Master Plan as necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service.
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions
While the original fee schedules and corresponding revenue generated were reviewed by the City and Willdan prior to conducting the nexus study analysis, the proposed fees are not increasing, so further review is not necessary.

Table 10.1 displays annual fee revenue collected, by impact fee fund.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
45 Table 10.1: Annual Collected Impact Fee Revenue
FY2016-17 FY2017-18 FY2018-19 FY2019-20 FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 Average
(FY17 to
FY23)
Public Safety $ 41,193 $ 17,628 $ 56,109 $ 92,033 $ 16,527 $ 19,863 $ 32,303 $ 39,379 Civic Improvement 61,769 35,319 77,790 137,549 19,879 29,314 59,179 60,114 Parks 199,462 165,180 257,861 411,746 54,379 97,973 208,983 199,369 Traffic 71,784 27,379 225,273 215,911 33,414 33,989 56,410 94,880 Storm Drain 22,714 18,260 55,456 85,365 9,797 15,974 30,676 34,035 Water 57,965 27,084 62,775 120,433 16,238 21,158 32,528 48,312 Sewer 14,902 13,050 17,488 30,433 6,237 5,904 8,743 13,822 Source: City of St. Helena.
66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot
Impact fees for residential land uses are calculated per square foot and comply with AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan
Napa County has less than 250,000 residents so jurisdictions within this County are not considered to be large jurisdictions. This study is not required to include a capital improvement plan.

Agenda Item #13.1.

46 11. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect.

Inflation Adjustment
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.

Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the California Construction Cost Index (https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-DivisionResources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation. The California Construction Cost Index is based on data from the Engineering News Record and is aggregated and made available for free by the State of California.

The fee amounts can be adjusted based on the change in the index compared to the index in the base year of this study (2023).

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. Note that decreases in index value will result in decreases to fee amounts.

While fee updates using inflationary indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available.

Reporting Requirements
The City will comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.

Table 11.1 summarizes the annual and five-year reporting requirements identified in the Mitigation Fee Act.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
47 Table 11.1: Mitigation Fee Act - Annual and Five-year Administrative Requirements CA Gov't Code
Section Timing Reporting Requirements1
Recommended
Fee Adjustment
66001.(d)
The fifth fiscal year following the
first deposit into the account or
fund, and every five years
thereafter
(A) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. (B) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
(C) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements.
(D) Designate the approximate dates on which supplemental funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Comprehensive
Update
66006. (b) Within 180 days after the last
day of each fiscal year
(A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (B) The amount of the fee.
(C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (D) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned. (E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended including share funded by fees.
(F) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence.
(G) A description of any potential interfund transfers. (H) The amount of refunds made (if any).

Inflationary
Adjustment
1 Edited for brevity. Refer to the government code for full description.

Sources: California Government Code §6601 and §6606.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
48 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs.

The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues.

The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects if those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City’s facilities and provide benefit to new development. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly.

Agenda Item #13.1.

49 12. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.

The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory references are to the Act.

Purpose of Fee
▪ Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).

Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees documented by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development.

Use of Fee Revenues
▪ Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).

Fees documented in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City’s sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: public safety facilities, civic facilities, transportation facilities, parks and recreation facilities, storm drain facilities, water facilities and wastewater facilities.

Benefit Relationship
▪ Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).

The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities, infrastructure and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development.

Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.

Agenda Item #13.1.

City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Update Study
50 Burden Relationship
▪ Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).

Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For some facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted differently than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development.

The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.

Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standard sections of each facility category chapter.

Proportionality
▪ Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).

The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project’s size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.

See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the maximum justified facilities fees.

Agenda Item #13.1.

ORDINANCE NO.

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ST. HELENA UPDATING CHAPTER 3.32, DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, OF TITLE 3, REVENUE AND FINANCE, OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.

WHEREAS, Government Code sections 66000 et seq. empower the City to impose fees and other exactions to provide necessary public facilities required to mitigate the negative effects of new development projects, and the proposed establishment of the development impact fee is based upon the information contained in a development impact fee study prepared by City staff; and WHEREAS, the continued provision of new and expanded facilities and infrastructure is necessary to protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare of all citizens of the City of St. Helena by reducing adverse effects of urbanization and development; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 1996, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 96-2, which established impact fees for new development. The fees established by Ordinance No. 96-2 were based upon a Development Impact Fee Study issued in March 1996. The new fees became effective on June 9, 1996; and
WHEREAS, a Revised Development Impact Fee Study was completed in February 1997. Based upon the revisions to the original Impact Fee Study, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 97-4 amending Ordinance No. 96-2 consistent with Government Code Section 66000 et. seq.; and
WHEREAS, a Revised Development Impact Fee Study was completed in August 2006. Based upon the revisions to the original Development Impact Fee Study, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06-6 amending Ordinance No. 97-4 and modifying the development impact fees for new development consistent with Government Code Section 66000 et. seq.; and
WHEREAS, a Revised Development Impact Fee Study was completed in April 2013. Based upon the revisions to the original Development Impact Fee Study, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2013-2 amending Ordinance No. 06-6 and modifying the development impact fees for new development consistent with Government Code Section 66000 et. seq.; and
WHEREAS, a Revised Development Impact Fee Study was completed October 2023. Based upon the October 2023 Development Impact Fee Study, the City Council finds that the following changes to Ordinance No. 06-06, as previously amended by Ordinance No. 2013-2, are consistent with Government Code Section 66000 et. seq. and shall be adopted; and
Agenda Item #13.1.

WHEREAS, it is necessary to implement certain updates to the City’s development impact fees to assure that all development within the City pays its fair share of the costs of providing necessary public facilities and infrastructure to accommodate such new development; and
WHEREAS, the proposed increases in existing development impact fees are based upon the information contained in the documents prepared by City staff and Willdan Financial Services, entitled “Development Impact Fee Update Study”, dated October 17, 2023; and
WHEREAS, detailed descriptions of the public infrastructure facilities and improvements covered by the updated development impact fees, as well as their approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimated costs are also set forth in the Development Impact Fee Update Study; and
WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fee Update Study complies with applicable state law by establishing the basis for the imposition of the updated fees—in particular, the Study:

1. Identifies the purpose of the proposed updated fees;

2. Identifies the use to which the fees will be put;

3. Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between use of the fees and the types of projects on which the fees are imposed;

4. Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of developments on which the fees are imposed; and

5. Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and the cost of the public facilities or portions of the facilities attributable to the developments on which the fees are imposed.

WHEREAS, the development impact fees collected by the City shall be used to finance the public infrastructure facilities and improvements described or identified in the Development Impact Fee Update Study; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Development Impact Fee Update Study is on file in the City Clerk’s office and was made available for public review in accordance with state law; and
WHEREAS, the City published notice of the public hearing required under state law in accordance with Government Code sections 6062(a) and 66018; and WHEREAS, the increase of development impact fees is statutorily and categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because the setting of development impact fees merely establishes a funding mechanism for the provision of future projects and, as such, this Ordinance is not “an essential step culminating in action which may affect the environment” and Agenda Item #13.1.

environmental review required under CEQA will be performed when projects funded by the development impact fees are chosen and defined (Kaufman & Broad-South Bay, Inc. v. Morgan Hill Unified School District (1993) 9 Cal.App.4th 464).

NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of St. Helena does hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1: Recitals
The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Ordinance.

Section 2: Adoption
In connection with the updates to Chapter 3.32 of the St. Helena Municipal Code set forth in this Ordinance, the City Council also hereby adopts the Development Impact Fee Update Study, which is on file with the City Clerk and available for public inspection.

Section 3: Repeal
Ordinance No. 2013-2 is hereby repealed upon the effective date of this Ordinance.

Section 4: Amendment
Chapter 3.32 of the St. Helena Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows (new language is underlined, deletions are in strikeout):
“3.32.010 Findings.

In order to implement the goals and objectives of the general plan of the city of St. Helena and to mitigate the impacts caused by new development within the city, certain public improvement projects must be or had to be constructed. The city council determines that development impact fees are needed to finance these public improvements and to pay for development’s fair share of the construction costs of these improvements. In establishing the fees described in the following sections, the city council finds the fees adopted to be consistent with state law (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and with the city’s general plan and, pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fees and Agenda Item #13.1.

determines that the fees are not material with respect to the city’s housing needs as established in the housing element of the St. Helena general plan.

3.32.020 Description of fees.

A. Development impact fees are hereby established on new development or conversions within the city of St. Helena to pay for public improvements related to civic improvement projects, public safety, sewer projects, water projects, traffic mitigation, parks and storm drainage. In the following sections, the city council sets forth the specific amount of the development fee for each type of public improvement project.

B. At least every five years, the city council shall review these fees to determine whether the fee amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development and whether the public improvement projects described in the city’s capital improvement projects list are still needed. Failure to undertake this review shall not invalidate the imposition of the fees.

3.32.030 Limited use of fees.

The revenues raised by payment of these development impact fees shall each be placed in separate and special impact fund accounts, and such revenues, along with any interest earnings on each separate account, shall be used solely to:

A. Pay for the city’s future construction of those public improvement projects at least partially allocable to new development or conversions as described in the city’s capital improvement projects list; or
B. Reimburse the city for those described or listed projects constructed by the city with funds advanced by the city from other sources; or C. Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted by Section 3.32.110 to install such listed facilities which are oversized with supplemental size, length or capacity.

3.32.040 Imposition of fees.

A. Development impact fees shall be imposed on:

1. New development; and
Agenda Item #13.1.

2. Conversions, as provided in this chapter.

B. Development impact fees shall be paid by the owner of the property on which new development or conversion is to occur. The fees shall be collected by the city prior to the issuance of the building or development permit(s) for such development or conversion, whichever occurs later, unless payment at a later time is mandated by Government Code Section 66007.

C. Except as otherwise provided herein, square footage of residential and nonresidential buildings shall be measured by exterior dimensions. Unfinished attics, crawlspaces, and basements shall not be assessed until converted and finished as usable floor space.

D. A building or structure consisting of nonusable floor space, e.g., a garage, carport or storage shed, shall not be deemed to be part of the residential building for the purpose of determining the square footage of the residential building. Such ancillary structures shall require the payment of storm drainage and public safety impact fees; additional impact fees shall not be required until converted to usable floor space.

E. Each single-family residential unit within a multifamily residential building or development project shall be deemed to be a separate building for which a fee is imposed and shall be paid.

F. Additions to an existing building shall be deemed to occur whenever the amount of usable floor space is increased, or whenever new building space is constructed where no structures existed as part of the existing building, whether or not the total building floor area is increased by the new construction.

G. The first seventy (70) square feet of additions or conversions to an existing building in a two-year period shall be exempt from all fees except public safety impact fees and storm drainage impact fees.

H. No development impact fee shall be imposed more than once for the same floor space.

I. Each tenant space in a multi-use building or development project shall be deemed to be a separate use for which a fee is imposed and shall be paid.

3.32.050 Public safety impact fees.

Agenda Item #13.1.

A. Findings. The city council finds:

1. Numerous items of capital equipment are urgently needed for the city’s police and fire protection facilities to maintain the existing level of police and fire protection services to all areas of the city of St. Helena.

2. New development or conversions within the city of St. Helena result in increased usage of residential, commercial, industrial, and other affected properties, which thereby increases the service requirements and the capital equipment requirements of the city’s police and fire safety services. Such increased usage does not ordinarily result from mere subdivision or parcel map divisions of existing properties in the absence of new development or conversions.

3. The city must continue to fund capital additions to its public safety system. These capital improvements include expanding the police and fire department facilities and equipment. These additional capital expenditures are necessary to maintain an acceptable level of public safety service within the next fifteen (15) years.

4. In the absence of the imposition of a public safety impact fee upon all building permits, the additional capital expenses necessary to maintain an acceptable level of public safety services for the entire city would be unfairly imposed upon the owners and residents of the existing buildings and improvements within the city of St. Helena.

5. New development or conversions without the payment of fees imposed by this section would not be fair to the owners and occupants of existing buildings within the city of St. Helena.

6. The facts and evidence presented in the city’s impact fee study establish that there exists a reasonable relationship between the need for the fire and police department and other public safety improvements and the impacts of the types of new development or conversions for which a corresponding fee is charged. A reasonable relationship or nexus also exists between the fee’s use and the type of new development or conversions for which the fee is charged.

B. Schedule of Public Safety Impact Fees. A schedule of public safety impact fees will be established by City Council resolution.

Agenda Item #13.1.

A public safety impact fee of one dollar four cents ($1.04) per square foot shall be imposed on all new development or conversions. The same impact fee rate shall apply to both residential and nonresidential construction within the city of St. Helena.

C. There is hereby established and created a fund of the city entitled “public safety impact fund” and all revenues derived from and monies collected under this section, including accrued interest thereon, shall be deposited in such fund. The public safety impact fund is established for the sole purpose of providing monies for the acquisition, construction, and reconstruction of facilities and equipment and other capital purposes needed for the city’s fire department and the city’s police department in providing police and fire protection services.

3.32.060 Civic improvement impact fees.

A. Findings. The city council finds:

1. Numerous items of civic improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable level of the existing and future civic activities for all areas of the city of St. Helena.

2. New development or conversions within the city of St. Helena result in increased usage of residential, commercial, industrial, and other affected properties, which thereby increases the service requirements and the capital equipment requirements of the city’s library, administrative facilities, and other civic facilities. Such increased usage does not ordinarily result from mere subdivision or parcel map divisions of existing properties in the absence of new development or conversions.

3. The city must continue to fund civic improvements within the city.

These civic improvements include expanding the city hall and the library. These additional capital expenditures are necessary to maintain an acceptable level of the civic activities available in St. Helena within the next fifteen (15) years.

4. In the absence of the imposition of a civic improvement impact fee upon new development or conversions, the additional capital expenses necessary to maintain an acceptable level of civic services for the entire city would be unfairly imposed upon the owners and residents of the existing buildings and improvements within the city of St. Helena.

Agenda Item #13.1.

5. New development or conversions without the payment of fees imposed by this section would not be fair to the owners and occupants of existing buildings within the city of St. Helena.

6. The facts and evidence presented in the city’s impact fee study establish that there exists a reasonable relationship between the need for libraries, city administration, and other civic improvements and the impacts of the types of new development or conversions for which a corresponding fee is charged. A reasonable relationship or nexus also exists between the fee’s use and the type of new development or conversions for which the fee is charged.

B. Schedule of Civic Improvement Impact Fees. A schedule of civic improvement impact fees will be established by City Council resolution.

1. A civic improvement impact fee of one dollar ninety-five cents ($1.95) per square foot shall be imposed on all new residential development or conversions.

2. A civic improvement impact fee of one dollar ninety-five cents ($1.95) per square foot shall be imposed on all new commercial/retail development and conversions.

3. A civic improvement impact fee of one dollar ninety-five cents ($1.95) per square foot shall be imposed on all new office development and conversions.

4. A civic improvement impact fee of one dollar ninety-five cents ($1.95) per square foot shall be imposed on all new industrial development and conversions.

5. A civic improvement impact fee of one dollar ninety-five cents ($1.95) per square foot shall be imposed on all new lodging development and conversions.

C. There is hereby established and created a fund of the city entitled “civic improvement impact fund” and all revenues derived from and monies collected under this section, including accrued interest thereon, shall be deposited in such fund. The civic improvement impact fund is established for the sole purpose of providing monies for the acquisition, construction, and reconstruction of city hall, the St. Helena library, community facilities, and equipment and other capital purposes needed for providing civic services.

3.32.065 Park impact fees.

A. Findings. The city council finds:

Agenda Item #13.1.

1. Additional park facilities are needed to accommodate future growth and maintain an acceptable level of the existing park and recreational facilities for all areas of the city of St. Helena.

2. New development or conversions within the city of St. Helena result in increased usage of the existing park and recreational facilities throughout the city, which thereby increases the service requirements and the capital equipment requirements of the city’s parks and recreation facilities. Such increased usage does not ordinarily result from mere subdivision or parcel map divisions of existing properties in the absence of new development or conversions.

3. The city must continue to fund park and recreation improvements within the city. These park and recreation improvements include developing additional parklands, open spaces, and recreational facilities. These additional capital expenditures are necessary to maintain the public health, safety, and welfare by assuring an acceptable level of the park and recreation facilities is available in St. Helena within the next fifteen (15) years.

4. In the absence of the imposition of a park improvement impact fee upon new development or conversions, the additional capital expenses necessary to maintain an acceptable level of civic services for the entire city would be unfairly imposed upon the owners and residents of the existing buildings and improvements within the city of St. Helena.

5. New development or conversions without the payment of fees imposed by this section would not be fair to the owners and occupants of existing buildings within the city of St. Helena.

6. The facts and evidence presented in the city’s impact fee study establish that there exists a reasonable relationship between the need for parks and other recreation facilities and the impacts of the types of new development or conversions for which a corresponding fee is charged. A reasonable relationship or nexus also exists between the fee’s use and the type of new development or conversions for which the fee is charged.

B. Schedule of Park and Recreation Impact Fees. A schedule of park and recreation impact fees will be established by City Council resolution.

Agenda Item #13.1.

1. A park and recreation impact fee of seven dollars sixteen cents ($7.16) per square foot shall be imposed on all new low density (single-family) residential development or conversions.

2. A park and recreation impact fee of twelve dollars eighteen cents ($12.18) per square foot shall be imposed on all new medium and higher density (multifamily) residential development and conversions.

C. There is hereby established and created a fund of the city entitled “park and recreation impact fund” and all revenues derived from and monies collected under this section, including accrued interest thereon, shall be deposited in such fund. The park and recreation improvement impact fund is established for the sole purpose of providing monies for the acquisition, construction, and reconstruction of playgrounds, community facilities, recreation facilities and equipment and other capital purposes needed for providing park and recreation services.

D. The park and recreation impact fees imposed by this section shall not apply to residential development that is subject to the dedication of parkland or the imposition of in-lieu fees, or a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes, as a condition of approval of a tentative map or parcel map pursuant to Section 16.28.040, adopted in accordance with Government Code Section 66477(a), otherwise known as the “Quimby Act.”

3.32.070 Water impact fees.*
A. Findings. The city council finds that:

1. Numerous water system improvements are needed to maintain the existing level of water services for all areas served by the city of St. Helena water enterprise.

2. New development or conversions within the service area of the city of St. Helena water enterprise results in increased usage of residential, commercial, industrial, and other affected properties, which thereby increases the water service requirements and the capital equipment requirements for the storage, treatment and transmission of the city’s water supply. Such increased usage does not ordinarily result from mere subdivision or parcel map divisions of existing properties in the absence of new development or conversions.

Agenda Item #13.1.

3. The city must continue to fund capital improvements to its water system. These capital improvements include updating or replacing water distribution lines, and improving current treatment and storage capabilities.

These additional capital expenditures are necessary to maintain an acceptable level of water service within the next fifteen (15) years.

4. In the absence of the imposition of a water impact fee upon new development or conversions, the additional capital expenses necessary to maintain an acceptable level of water service for the entire service area of the city of St. Helena water enterprise would be unfairly imposed upon the owners and residents of the existing buildings and improvements within the service area of the city of St. Helena water enterprise.

5. New development or conversions without the payment of fees imposed by this section would not be fair to the owners and occupants of existing buildings within the service area of the city of St. Helena water enterprise.

6. Part of the costs associated with the capital improvements to the water system and the debt service on earlier funded water projects are apportioned to new development or conversions to accommodate increased demand for water by new residents and businesses and the increased need for water for fire protection purposes for the new structures associated with new development or conversions.

7. The facts and evidence presented in the city’s impact fee study establish that there exists a reasonable relationship between the need for the water system improvements and the impacts of the types of new development for which a corresponding fee is charged. A reasonable relationship or nexus also exists between the fee’s use and the type of new development and conversions for which the fee is charged.

B. Schedule of Water Impact Fees.

1. A schedule of water impact fees applicable to every person connecting to the City’s water system, converting unusable to usable floor space in existing buildings which are already connected to the City’s water system, or adding to existing buildings which are already connected to the City’s water system will be established by City Council resolution.

2. Every person converting an existing use from one use category (residential, commercial, office, industrial, or lodging) to another use category Agenda Item #13.1.

shall pay a water impact fee equal to the difference, if any, between the fees calculated for existing and new uses as set forth in subsection (B)(1) hereof, except that no water impact fee shall be assessed if a “water-oriented” connection fee had been paid for the building or development project pursuant to the City’s former water connection ordinance.

1. Every person connecting to the city’s water system or converting unusable to usable floor space in or adding to existing buildings which are already connected to the city’s water system shall pay to the city a water impact fee in accordance with the following schedule:

Single-Family: $1.68 per sq. ft.

Multifamily: $1.35 per sq. ft.

Office: $1.72 per sq. ft.

Industrial: $2.29 per sq. ft.

Commercial: $3.33 per sq. ft.

Lodging: $3.36 per sq. ft.

2. Every person converting an existing use from one use category (residential, commercial, industrial or office) to another use category shall pay a water impact fee equal to the difference, if any, between the fees calculated for the existing and new uses as set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section, except no water impact fee shall be assessed if a “water-oriented” connection fee had been paid for the building or development project pursuant to the city’s former water connection ordinances.

3. No water impact fee shall be assessed on conversions to another use within the same use category. No person shall be entitled to a refund on conversions from a higher rate use category to a lower rate use category.

C. In addition to the above charges set by resolution of the city council or by subsection (B)(2) hereof, all expenses and costs of making a water connection shall be borne by the person making the connection. No connection shall be made to a public water supply except by the city or by written permission from the city.

Agenda Item #13.1.

D. There is hereby established and created a fund of the city entitled “water impact fund” and all revenues derived from and monies collected under this section, including accrued interest thereon, shall be deposited in such fund. The water impact fund is established for the sole purpose of providing monies for equipment, infrastructure, and other capital facilities needed for the acquisition, storage, treatment, and transmission of water for the city of St. Helena water enterprise, to repay principal and interest on bonds issued for the construction or reconstruction of water projects or facilities, and to repay federal and state loans or advances made to the city for the construction or reconstruction of water supplies facilities or infrastructure. * Code reviser’s note: Section 3 of Ord. 15-7 provides: “Every person who paid Water System Impact Fees at the rates established in Ordinance No. 2013-2 shall be given a refund equal to the difference, if any, between the aggregate Water System Impact fees paid and the aggregate Water System Impact fees established by this ordinance; except no refunds will be paid to persons who received City Council approval of a fee adjustment or waiver during the relevant time period.”

3.32.080 Sewer impact fees.

A. Findings. The city council finds:

1. St. Helena has a sewer system that consists of a collection system including public sewers and interceptors leading to the wastewater treatment plant and to the disposal system.

2. New development or conversions in the city of St. Helena have a significant impact on the sewer system. St. Helena was previously under a sewer connection moratorium where the state of California effectively prohibited any new development and conversions in the city since no new sewer connections were allowed. In order to have the moratorium lifted and to allow for more development in the city of St. Helena, the city incurred debt to upgrade and expand the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant.

3. The city must continue to fund capital improvements to its sewer system. These capital improvements include updating or replacing sewer lines, improving current treatment capabilities, and promoting the use of reclaimed water. These additional capital expenditures are necessary to maintain an acceptable level of sewer service and wastewater treatment within the next fifteen (15) years.

Agenda Item #13.1.

4. New development or conversions within the city result in increased usage of residential, commercial, industrial, and other affected properties, which thereby increases the service requirements and the capital equipment requirements for the city’s sewage treatment and disposal system. Such increased usage does not ordinarily result from mere subdivision or parcel map divisions of existing properties in the absence of new development or conversions.

5. In the absence of the imposition of a sewer impact fee upon new development or conversions, the additional capital expenses necessary to maintain an acceptable level of sewer service and wastewater treatment for the entire city would be unfairly imposed upon the owners and residents of the existing buildings and improvements within the city of St. Helena.

6. New development or conversions without the payment of fees imposed by this section would not be fair to the owners and occupants of existing buildings within the city of St. Helena.

7. Part of the costs associated with the capital improvements to the sewer system as well as payments on the wastewater debt service are apportioned to new development and conversions to accommodate increased usage of the sewer system and treatment plant by new residents and businesses.

8. The facts and evidence presented in the city’s impact fee study establish that there exists a reasonable relationship between the need for the sewer system improvements and the impacts of the types of new development or conversions for which a corresponding fee is charged. A reasonable relationship or nexus also exists between the fee’s use and the type of new development or conversions for which the fee is charged.

B. Schedule of Sewer Impact Fees. A schedule of sewer impact fees applicable to every person connecting to the City’s sewer system, converting unusable to usable floor space in existing buildings which are already connected to the City’s sewer system, or adding to existing buildings which are already connected to the City’s sewer system will be established by City Council resolution.

1. Every person connecting to the city’s sewer system or converting unusable to usable floor space in or adding to existing buildings which are Agenda Item #13.1.

already connected to the city’s sewer system shall pay to the city a sewer impact fee in accordance with the following schedule:

Single-Family: $0.45 per sq. ft.

Multifamily: $0.66 per sq. ft.

Office: $0.44 per sq. ft.

Industrial: $0.59 per sq. ft.

Commercial: $0.88 per sq. ft.

Lodging: $0.87 per sq. ft.

2. Every person converting an existing use from one use category (residential, commercial, industrial or office) to another use category shall pay a sewer impact fee equal to the difference, if any, between the fees calculated for the existing and new uses as set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section, except no sewer impact fee shall be assessed if a “water-oriented” sewer connection fee had been paid for the building or development project pursuant to the city’s former sewer connection ordinances.

3. No sewer impact fee shall be assessed on conversions to another use within the same use category. No person shall be entitled to a refund on conversions from a higher rate use category to a lower rate use category.

C. In addition to the above charges, all expenses and costs of making a sewer connection shall be borne by the person making the connection. No connection shall be made to a public sewer except by the city or by written permission from the city.

D. There is hereby established and created a fund of the city entitled “sewer impact fund” and all revenues derived from and monies collected under this section, including accrued interest thereon, shall be deposited in such fund. The sewer impact fund is established for the sole purpose of providing monies for the acquisition, construction, and reconstruction of sanitation and sewage facilities, to repay principal and interest on bonds issued for the construction or reconstruction of such sanitary or sewage facilities, and to repay federal and state loans or advances made to the city for the construction or reconstruction of sanitary or sewage facilities and infrastructure.

3.32.090 Storm drainage impact fees.

A. Findings. The city council finds:

Agenda Item #13.1.

1. Numerous items of capital infrastructure are urgently needed for the city’s drainage system to maintain an acceptable level of storm drainage from all areas of the city of St. Helena.

2. New development within the city of St. Helena results in increased usage of residential, commercial, industrial, and other affected properties, which thereby increases the amount of impervious surfaces and irrigation of landscaping which create greater need for and usage of drainage systems within the city. Such increased drainage and usage of the system do not ordinarily result from mere subdivision or parcel map divisions of existing properties in the absence of new development.

3. The city must continue to fund capital improvements to its storm drainage system. These capital improvements include constructing storm drains and storm sewers within the city and conducting a storm drainage and monitoring study. These additional capital expenditures are necessary to maintain an acceptable level of storm drainage within the city in the next fifteen (15) years.

4. In the absence of the imposition of a storm drainage impact fee upon new development, the additional capital expenses necessary to maintain an acceptable level of the city’s drainage system for the entire city would be unfairly imposed upon the owners and residents of the existing buildings and improvements within the city of St. Helena.

5. New development without the payment of fees imposed by this section would not be fair to the owners and occupants of existing buildings within the city of St. Helena.

6. The facts and evidence presented in the city’s impact fee study establish that there exists a reasonable relationship between the need for the drainage improvements and the impacts of the types of development for which a corresponding fee is charged. A reasonable relationship or nexus also exists between the fee’s use and the type of development for which the fee is charged.

B. Schedule of Storm Drainage Impact Fees. A schedule of storm drainage impact fees applicable to new construction of buildings, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, walkways, patios, decks, and other similar structures, and to any construction of or conversions of an existing building that increase the impervious surface footprint of a parcel, will be established by City Council resolution.

Agenda Item #13.1.

1. A storm drainage impact fee shall be imposed on new construction of buildings, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, walkways, patios, decks, and other similar structures, and upon any construction of additions or conversions to an existing building that increase the impervious surface footprint of the parcel.

2. The storm drainage impact fee for new development or conversions shall be as follows:

Single-Family: $0.73 per sq. ft.

Multifamily: $0.69 per sq. ft.

Office: $1.65 per sq. ft.

Industrial: $1.65 per sq. ft.

Commercial: $1.65 per sq. ft.

Lodging: $1.28 per sq. ft.

C. New development constructed, added or converted in the area required to pay the drainage fees imposed under Chapter 17.108 shall not be required to pay the storm drainage impact fee required under this section.

D. There is hereby established and created a fund of the city entitled “storm drainage impact fund” and all revenues derived from and monies collected under this section, including accrued interest thereon, shall be deposited in such fund. The storm drainage impact fund is established for the sole purpose of providing monies for the acquisition, construction, and reconstruction of facilities and equipment and for other capital purposes needed for the city’s storm drainage system and for additional drainage and monitoring studies.

3.32.100 Traffic mitigation impact fees.

A. Findings. The city council finds:

1. New development or conversions within the city of St. Helena result in increased usage of residential, commercial, industrial, and other affected properties, which thereby generates additional traffic within the city and will contribute to the usage and degradation of the existing street infrastructure in the city of St. Helena.

2. The purpose of this fee is to finance circulation improvements to reduce the impacts of traffic generated by new development within the city.

Agenda Item #13.1.

3. The city must continue to fund capital improvements to its traffic circulation system. These capital improvements include building new roads, bridges, and traffic control facilities and equipment. These additional capital expenditures are necessary to maintain an acceptable level of traffic circulation and the city’s roadway system within the next fifteen (15) years.

4. In the absence of the imposition of a traffic mitigation impact fee upon new development or conversions, the additional capital expenses necessary to maintain acceptable traffic circulation for the entire city would be unfairly imposed upon the owners and residents of the existing buildings and improvements within the city of St. Helena.

5. The construction of new development or conversions without the payment of fees imposed by this section would not be fair to the owners and occupants of existing buildings within the city of St. Helena.

6. The facts and evidence presented in the city’s impact fee study establish that there exists a reasonable relationship between the need for the traffic improvements and the impacts of the types of new development or conversions for which a corresponding fee is charged. A reasonable relationship or nexus also exists between the fee’s use and the type of new development or conversions for which the fee is charged.

B. Schedule of Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees.

1. A schedule of traffic mitigation impact fees applicable to new development or conversions within the City will be established by City Council resolution.

1. A traffic mitigation impact fee shall be imposed on new development or conversions within the city of St. Helena.

2. The traffic mitigation impact fee for new development or conversions shall be as follows:

Single-Family Development,
Conversions, Additions: $1.94 per square foot
Multifamily Development, Conversions,
Additions: $2.36 per square foot
Industrial Development, Conversions,
Additions: $3.40 per square foot
Agenda Item #13.1.

Office Development, Conversions,
Additions: $5.36 per square foot
Commercial Development,
Conversions, Additions: $20.89 per square foot
Lodging: $7.98 per square foot

23. Every person converting an existing use from one use category (residential, commercial, industrial or office) to another use category shall pay a traffic mitigation impact fee equal to the difference, if any, between the fees calculated for the existing and new uses as set forth in subsection (B)(12) of this section.

34. No traffic mitigation impact fee shall be assessed on conversions to another use within the same use category. No person shall be entitled to a refund on conversions from a higher rate use category to a lower rate use category.

C. There is hereby established and created a fund of the city entitled “traffic mitigation impact fund” and all revenues derived from and monies collected under this section, including accrued interest thereon, shall be deposited in such fund. The traffic mitigation impact fund is established for the sole purpose of providing monies for the construction and reconstruction of facilities and equipment and other capital purposes needed for traffic circulation improvements in and around the city of St. Helena.

3.32.110 Developer construction of facilities.

A. Whenever a developer is required, as a condition of approval of a subdivision, development permit or building permit, to construct a public facility described in the capital improvement projects list, which facility is determined by the city to have supplemental size, length or capacity over that needed to address the impacts of that development, and when construction is necessary to ensure efficient and timely construction of the facilities network, a reimbursement agreement with the developer and a credit against the applicable impact fee, which would otherwise be charged pursuant to this chapter on the development project, shall be offered. The reimbursement amount shall not include the portion of the improvement needed to provide services or mitigate the need for the facility or the burdens created by the development.

Agenda Item #13.1.

B. A developer who installs an off-site improvement as a special mitigation measure for a project which is identified on the capital improvement projects list to be funded at least partially by impact fees may claim credit on such a fee not to exceed the impact fee payable for the development project. The city’s public works director is authorized to allow such credit.

C. If a developer is dissatisfied with the decision of the city’s public works director regarding a reimbursement agreement or a credit of development impact fees, the developer shall appeal for relief to the city council by filing a written appeal with the city clerk within fifteen (15) days after the disputed decision. The appeal shall state in sufficient detail the basis for the claimed credit. The decision of the city council shall be final.

3.32.120 Fee adjustment.

A. A developer of any project, including any new building or addition to or conversion of any existing building, subject to the fees described in Sections 3.32.050 through 3.32.100 may apply to the city council for a reduction or adjustment of the fee(s), or a waiver of the fee(s), based upon the absence of any reasonable relationship between the nature of the impact of the development and either the amount of the fee charged or the type of facilities to be financed.

B. The application for a fee reduction, adjustment, or waiver shall be made in writing and filed with the city clerk not later than twenty (20) days after the filing of the application for a building permit.

C. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver, reduction, or adjustment. The city council shall consider the application at a hearing held within thirty (30) days after the filing of the fee adjustment application. The decision of the city council shall be final.

D. If a reduction, adjustment, or waiver is granted, any change in use within the project shall invalidate the waiver, adjustment or reduction of the fee.

3.32.130 Definitions.

A. “Building permit” shall mean the permit required or issued by the city of St.

Helena for the construction, improvement or remodeling of any structure pursuant to the city of St. Helena’s building codes.

Agenda Item #13.1.

B. “City” shall mean the governmental body managing the administrative operations of the city of St. Helena.

C. “City of St. Helena” shall mean all property located within the geographical area within the city of St. Helena’s city limit line.

D. “City of St. Helena impact fee study” shall mean the study, including any amendments or revisions thereto, for the financing of facilities and services designated under the capital improvement projects list for the city of St. Helena. This study includes, but is not limited to, a designation of those facilities to be constructed with the impact fees collected under this chapter, the estimated costs of constructing those facilities or providing the services designated therein, and the total use factors or other criteria utilized to arrive at an allocation of the cost of the facilities to the different types of land uses and to new development.

E. “Conversion” shall mean converting from unusable to usable floor space, or converting the existing use to another use.

F. “Developer” shall mean any person who is the owner or authorized agent of an owner of any new development within the city of St. Helena.

G. “Dwelling unit” shall mean a residential dwelling within the city of St. Helena.

Each single-family residential unit within a multifamily residential building or development project shall be deemed to be a separate dwelling unit.

H. “New development” shall mean the original construction of residential, commercial, industrial or other nonresidential buildings, or the addition of usable floor space within existing residential or nonresidential buildings, or the construction of new accessory buildings.

I. “Owner” shall mean the legal owner(s) or the authorized agent(s) for any owner of property being developed.

J. “Usable floor space” shall mean any interior space constructed or converted to be used for human occupancy in accordance with the Uniform Building Code.

3.32.140 Development agreements.

The terms of any development approvals or building permit(s) may be negotiated as part of a development agreement which may require a developer to provide or Agenda Item #13.1.

finance any public projects deemed agreeable to both the developer and the city council. Development constructed under the terms of a development agreement approved pursuant to Chapter 17.156 may be exempted from the payment of any of the impact fees required under Sections 3.32.050 through 3.32.100.

3.32.150 Inflationary fee increases.

Due to the increases in costs of construction, developing and designing the projects to be financed by the development impact fees set forth herein, such fees shall be automatically adjusted annually commencing July 1, 1998, and every July 1st thereafter. The fee adjustments shall be based on the increase, if any, in the Engineering News Record U.S. twenty (20) city average construction cost index for the June preceding the increase and the June one year prior thereto.” Section 5: Severability.

If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 6: CEQA.

This Ordinance was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), and the environmental regulations of the City. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance updating the City’s requirements for development impact fees is statutorily and categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because the setting of development impact fees merely establishes a funding mechanism for the provision of future projects and, as such, this Ordinance is not “an essential step culminating in action which may affect the environment” and environmental review required under CEQA will be performed when projects funded by the development impact fees are chosen and defined (Kaufman & Broad-South Bay, Inc. v. Morgan Hill Unified School District (1993) 9 Cal.App.4th 464).

Section 7: Notice and Effective Date.

Agenda Item #13.1.

This ordinance was reviewed at a noticed public hearing, for which the Ordinance, Resolution Establishing Updated Development Impact Fees, and the associated Development Impact Fee Study were available to the general public for a period of not less than 14 days prior to the public hearing. These fees shall apply to the issuance of any building permit for any residential and non-residential development issued 60 days following the passage of this ordinance.

Section 8. Publication.

The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same, or a summary of the Ordinance prepared by the City Attorney, to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once, in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of St. Helena, California. .

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the day of , 2023, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the day of , 2023, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Hall: _____
Councilmember Chouteau: _____
Councilmember Hardy: _____
Councilmember Summers: _____
APPROVED:
___________________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
ATTEST:

CITY OF ST. HELENA
___________________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
I, CINDY TZAFOPOULOS, CITY CLERK of the City of St. Helena, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2023. That Agenda Item #13.1.

thereafter said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2023, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Hall: _____
Councilmember Chouteau: _____
Councilmember Hardy: _____
Councilmember Summers: _____
Agenda Item #13.1.

RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA

ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE

STUDY BY WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES AND ESTABLISHING UPDATED

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, CIVIC

IMPROVEMENT, PARKS AND RECREATION, WATER, SEWER, STORM

DRAINAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION AS RECOMMENDED IN THE

IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Helena has adopted an Ordinance authorizing the establishment of development fees for the mitigation of the impacts of land development on the following public facilities:

Public Safety
Civic Improvement
Parks and Recreation
Water
Sewer
Storm Drainage
Traffic Mitigation
WHEREAS, in order to continue to provide new and expanded facilities and infrastructure to protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare of all citizens of the City and ensure that developers pay their fair share to mitigate impacts to the City, it is necessary from time to time to implement updates to the City’s development impact fees in accordance with supporting documentation; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed increases in existing development impact fees are based upon the information contained in the documents prepared by City staff and Willdan Financial Services, entitled “Development Impact Fee Update Study”, dated October 17, 2023 and prepared in accordance with California Government Code §§ 66000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Study provided the City with information and data regarding the nexus between the planned public improvements and the benefiting land uses that would pay the impact fees at time of issuance of a building permit; and
WHEREAS, the Study provides the City with the findings necessary to update the City’s current impact fees in accordance with Government Code § 66001; and,
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed development impact fees with an opportunity for Agenda Item #13.1.

the public to be heard, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code §§ 66016 – 66018; and
WHEREAS, the Study prepared by Willdan Financial Services has been available for public review and comment pursuant to the provisions of Government Code §66016 and §6062a; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted Ordinance No. ____________ which revises the sections of the St. Helena Municipal Code relating to impact fees to clarify that updated impact fees are to be established and may be amended by Resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. ________, the City Council of the City of St. Helena desires to impose the updated development impact fees in accordance with the nexus calculations and recommendations in the Study.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena does hereby find, order, and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of St. Helena finds and determines that the Study complies with California Government Code §66001 by establishing the basis for the imposition of the impact fees on new development. This finding is based on the fact that the Study:
(a) Identifies the purpose of the fee;
(b) Identifies the use to which the fee will be put;
(c) Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; (d) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed; and
(e) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby determines that the fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance the public improvements described or identified in the Study or such other public facility master plans or capital improvement program as may from time to time be adopted by the City Council.

SECTION 3. The City Council has considered the specific project descriptions and the cost estimates identified in the Study and hereby approves such project descriptions and cost estimates and finds them reasonable as the basis for calculating and imposing the updated development impact fees.

Agenda Item #13.1.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that the projects and fee methodology identified in the Study are consistent with the City's General Plan.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby approves the Development Impact Fee Update Study, dated October 17, 2023, prepared by Willdan Financial Services, and the findings contained therein. A copy of the Study shall be on file with the City Clerk and available during regular City business hours for public inspection.

SECTION 6. The City Council hereby approves the schedule of updated Development Impact Fees contained in and attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

SECTION 7. The new fees attached hereto shall become effective on February 1, 2024, which is more than sixty (60) days following the adoption of this Resolution by the City Council.

SECTION 8. The increase of development impact fees is statutorily and categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because the setting of development impact fees merely establishes a funding mechanism for the provision of future projects and, as such, this Resolution is not “an essential step culminating in action which may affect the environment” and environmental review required under CEQA will be performed when projects funded by the development impact fees are chosen and defined (Kaufman & Broad-South Bay, Inc. v. Morgan Hill Unified School District (1993) 9 Cal.App.4th 464).

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
.
_______________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
I, CINDY TZAFOPOULOS, CITY CLERK of the City of St. Helena, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 20 . That thereafter said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 20 , by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Hall: _____
Agenda Item #13.1.

Councilmember Chouteau: _____
Councilmember Hardy: _____
Councilmember Summers: _____
Agenda Item #13.1.

Exhibit “A”
City of St. Helena Development Impact Fee Schedule
Fee Type Amount
Public Safety Impact Fees 1. One Dollar and Thirty Cents ($1.30) per square foot for all new residential
development or conversions.

2. One Dollar and Thirty Cents ($1.30) per
square foot for all new commercial/ retail
development and conversions.

3. Two Dollars and No Cents ($2.00) per
square foot for all new office development
and conversions.

4. Seventy One Cents ($0.71) per square
foot for all new industrial development
and conversions.

5. One Dollar and Thirty Seven Cents
($1.37) per square foot for all new lodging
development and conversions.

Civic Improvement Impact Fees 1. One Dollar and Sixty Cents ($1.60) per square foot for all new residential
development or conversions.

2. One Dollar and Sixty Cents ($1.60) per
square foot for all new commercial/ retail
development or conversions.

3. Two Dollars and Forty Six Cents ($2.46)
per square foot for all new office
development and conversions.

4. Eighty Seven Cents ($0.87) per square
foot for all new industrial development
and conversions.

5. One Dollar and Sixty Nine Cents ($1.69)
per square foot for all new lodging
development and conversions.

Park and Recreation Fees 1. Seven Dollars and Sixteen Cents ($7.16) per square foot for all new low-density
(single-family) residential development or
conversions.

2. Twelve Dollars and Eighteen Cents
($12.18) per square foot for all new
medium and higher-density (multifamily)
residential development and conversions.

Water Impact Fees Every person connecting to the City’s water system, converting unusable to usable floor
space in existing buildings that are already
connected to the City’s water system, or
Agenda Item #13.1.

adding new space to existing buildings that
are already connected to the City’s water
system shall be subject to the following water
impact fees:

1. One Dollar and Forty One Cents ($1.41)
per square foot for residential uses.

2. Eighty Six Cents ($0.86) per square foot
for office uses.

3. Seventy Three Cents ($0.73) per square
foot for industrial uses.

4. Eighty Six Cents ($0.86) per square foot
for commercial uses.

5. Two Dollars and Forty Cents ($2.40) per
square foot for lodging uses.

Sewer Impact Fees Every person connecting to the City’s sewer system, converting unusable to usable floor
space in existing buildings that are already
connected to the City’s sewer system, or
adding new space to existing buildings that
are already connected to the City’s sewer
system shall be subject to the following
sewer impact fees:

1. One Dollar and Fifty Seven Cents ($1.57)
per square foot for residential uses.

2. One Dollar and Eighty Seven Cents
($1.87) per square foot for office uses.

3. One Dollar and Sixty Five Cents ($1.65)
per square foot for industrial uses.

4. One Dollar and Eighty Seven Cents
($1.87) per square foot for commercial
uses.

5. Five Dollars and Fifty Cents ($5.50) per
square foot for lodging uses.

Storm Drainage Impact Fees 1. Sixty One Cents ($0.61) per square foot for residential uses.

2. One Dollar and Fifty Eight Cents ($1.58)
per square foot for office uses.

3. One Dollar and Ninety Cents ($1.90) per
square foot for industrial uses.

4. One Dollar and Ninety Cents ($1.90) per
square foot for commercial uses.

5. Two Dollars and Sixty Four Cents ($2.64)
per square foot for lodging uses.

Traffic Mitigation Impact Fees 1. Eighty One Cents ($0.81) per square foot for residential development, conversions,
Agenda Item #13.1.

or additions.

2. Two Dollars and Forty Three Cents
($2.43) per square foot for industrial
development, conversions, or additions.

3. Four Dollars and Six Cents ($4.06) per
square foot for office development,
conversion, or additions.

4. Five Dollars and Ten Cents ($5.10) per
square foot for commercial development,
conversions, or additions.

5. Five Dollars and Forty Six Cents ($5.46)
per square foot for lodging uses.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Development Impact Fee Study Update
City of St. Helena
November 14, 2023
Agenda Item #13.1.

What is a Development Impact Fee?
One-time charge 1
Imposed at building permit stage
Imposed on all development projects
within a defined geographic area
Funds facilities to serve new development
Agenda Item #13.1.

Mitigation Fee Act Findings (Govt. Code §66001)
▪ Key findings
▪ Need: Development creates need for facilities
▪ Benefit: Development use of revenue
▪ Rough Proportionality: Fee amount development’s
share of facility costs
▪ Other findings
▪ Purpose of fee
▪ Use of fee revenue
3 Agenda Item #13.1.

▪ Requires local jurisdictions to make certain
information available on website:
▪ Current impact fee schedule
▪ Nexus studies
▪ Annual AB1600 reports
▪ Five-Year AB1600 reports
▪ Changes to impact fee adoption process:
▪ Prior to adoption of development fees,
an impact fee nexus study needs to be
adopted with 30 days notice
▪ Technical changes:
▪ Residential fees should be charged
per square foot, unless findings are
supported that justify another
metric
▪ Large jurisdictions shall adopt a
capital improvement plan as a part
of the nexus study
▪ Nexus study should identify level of
service
▪ If fees are increasing, review the
assumptions of the original nexus
study and evaluate the amount of
fees collected under the original fee
AB 602
Agenda Item #13.1.

Impact Fees – Basic Methodology

ESTIMATE

EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT

AND FUTURE
GROWTH

IDENTIFY FACILITY

STANDARDS

DETERMINE NEW

FACILITY NEEDS

AND COSTS

ALLOCATE SHARE
TO

ACCOMMODATE
GROWTH

IDENTIFY

ALTERNATIVE

FUNDING NEEDS

CALCULATE FEE BY

ALLOCATING

COSTS PER UNIT
OF NEW

DEVELOPMENT
Agenda Item #13.1.

St. Helena Development Impact Fee Categories
▪Public Safety Facilities
▪Civic Facilities
▪Transportation Facilities
▪Parks
▪Storm Drainage
▪Water
▪Wastewater
Agenda Item #13.1.

Growth Projections
2023 2040 Growth
Residents 5,212 6,600 1,388
Dwelling Units 2,856 3,100 244
Employment 4,164 5,900 1,736
Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2023; St. Helena General Plan Update EIR (2018); U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Cost Allocation Methods:

WHAT Facilities Serve WHO

PLANNED FACILITIES
Planned Facilities
New Demand

EXISTING INVENTORY
Existing Facilities
Existing Demand
Agenda Item #13.1.

Cost Allocation Methodologies
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Facility Demand Facility Needs
Existing
Demand
Future
Demand
Existing Inventory Method
New
Facilities
Existing
Facilities
Fee $
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Future
Demand
New
Facilities
Demand Facility Needs
Planned Facilities Method
Agenda Item #13.1.

Fee Program Methodologies
Public safety facilities
Civic facilities
Parks
Existing Standard
Transportation
Storm drain
Water
Wastewater
Planned Facilities
Agenda Item #13.1.

Projected Impact Fee Revenue
Fee Category Net Project Cost
Projected Impact
Fee Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Public Safety $ 3,730,662 $ 3,730,662 $ -
Civic Facilities 4,589,658 4,589,658 -
Transportation Facilities 18,799,000 4,060,584 14,738,416 Parks 7,771,000 7,771,000 -
Storm Drainage 19,273,000 2,356,359 16,916,641
Water 18,539,000 1,757,577 16,781,423
Wastewater 26,683,341 2,854,058 23,829,283
Total $ 99,385,661 $ 27,119,898 $ 72,265,763
Agenda Item #13.1.

Maximum Justified Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use Public Safety
Civic
Facilities
Transportation
Facilities Parks
Storm
Drainage Water Wastewater
Total -
Maximum
Justified
Residential - per Sq. Ft, $ 1.30 $ 1.60 $ 0.81 $ 3.77 $ 0.61 $ 1.41 $ 1.57 $ 11.07 Nonresidential - Fee per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 1.30 $ 1.60 $ 5.10 $ - $ 1.90 $ 0.86 $ 1.87 $ 12.63 Office 2.00 2.46 4.06 - 1.58 0.86 1.87 12.83
Industrial

0.71 0.87 2.43 - 1.90 0.73 1.65 8.29
Hotel Room

1.37 1.69 5.46 - 2.64 2.40 5.50 19.07
Agenda Item #13.1.

Next Steps
▪Tonight: Hold public hearing to adopt revised fee
schedule
▪Affordable housing and commercial linkage fee nexus
study to be presented in December
Agenda Item #13.1.

Questions
Agenda Item #13.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Public Works
DATE: November 14, 2023
FROM: Mario Traverso, Public Works Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution granting an exemption to the building permit condition of requiring a separate utility connection for the proposed accessory
dwelling unit located at 1815 Spring Street.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Adopt the resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The purpose of this action is to request City Council to consider granting an exemption to SHMC 17.116.030 for
the proposed ADU located at 1815 Spring Street.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

BACKGROUND:

Heather and Ryan Peterson, owners of the property located at 1815 Spring Street, submitted an application for a building permit for the construction of a new 688 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Plan check comments from the Public Works Department were returned to the applicant which requested that the design plans provide for a separate utility connection (sewer and water) directly between the ADU and the utility as required by the St. Helena Municipal Code.

The City of St. Helena Municipal Code concerning accessory dwelling unit utility connections is as follows:

17.116.030(G)(2). Utility Fees
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. b. Except as described in subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section, converted ADUs and JADUs on a single-family lot that are created under subsection (D)(2)(a) of this section are not required to have a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility. Nor is a connection fee or capacity charge required.
c. Except as described in subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section, all ADUs and JADUs that are not covered by subsection (G)(2)(b) of this section require a new, separate utility connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility.

Agenda Item #15.1.

i. The connection is subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that is proportionate to the burden created by the ADU or JADU, based on either the floor area or the number of drainage-fixture units (DFU) values, as defined by the Uniform Plumbing Code, upon the water or sewer system. ii. The portion of the fee or charge that is charged by the city may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.

A separate utility connection between an ADU and the utility is required for any new ADU which is not a conversion.

DISCUSSION:

Staff is requesting City Council consider the request of Heather and Ryan Peterson granting an exemption of SHMC 17.116.030(G)(2) which requires the installation of separate utility connections for the proposed accessory dwelling unit.

Circumstances when an exemption should be considered include:

Existing Pavement Condition: It would not be preferable to require a project to install separate utility connections that would require excavations of a recently paved street.

Installation of separate utilities requires sawcutting and excavations of two 24-inch width trenches; depending on the location of the utility, the trenches may span the entire street. Typically, excavations into pavement lead to accelerated pavement deterioration.

Generally, the City would prefer to not allow excavations in new roadway surfaces for five years following pavement rehabilitation.

Existing Utility Condition: It would not be preferable to require a project to install a new separate utility connection to an existing utility when the condition of the existing utility is compromised. Situations exist where the integrity of the existing in-road utility may preclude the installation of new service equipment where required to maintain horizontal separations. Additionally, circumstances may arise during the course of a project design or construction including obstructions, property line or easement conflicts or alignment geometry complications that preclude the installation of new utility services.

Existing Service Condition: It may be redundant to require a separate utility connection in a situation where the existing utility connections have been demonstrated to provide adequate service, or have been replaced, upsized or otherwise meet current City standards.

Cost: The cost associated with the installation of separate utility connections is significant. This generally requires additional permits, inspections and specialty contractors. This cost at times may eclipse the cost of the overall project. This cost disparity can create a financial hardship for the property owner.

Agenda Item #15.1.

The project owners of 1815 Spring Street have petitioned that the existing storm drain culvert fronting the entirety of the property presents a significant obstruction which prevents the installation of separate utility connections. Additionally, the existing utility easement which contains the existing utilities is not dimensionally adequate to allow for the installation of additional utility services. The cost associated with the installation of new utilities through the culvert is not proportional to the project and presents a financial hardship. Additionally, documentation has been submitted to Public Works to demonstrate the performance sufficiency of the existing utility connections to adequately serve the proposed accessory dwelling unit (i.e. CCTV of existing sewer lateral, presentation of calculations demonstrating capacity for both sewer discharge and water service). Public Works concurs with the findings and recommends granting an exemption of SHMC 17.116.030(G)(2) for the proposed accessory dwelling unit located at 1815 Spring Street with the following direction:

1. The proposed ADU may connect the existing sewer lateral prior the lateral entering the public Right-of-Way.

2. The applicant shall determine an alternative method for presentation and acceptance by the City Engineer to account for water consumed and sewer discharged by the ADU.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution - 1815 Spring Street
Condition Report - 1815 Spring Street
Agenda Item #15.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
Resolution of the City Council
of the City of St. Helena to
approve the request for an
exemption of SHMC 17.116.030
requiring the installation of
separate utility connections to
the proposed accessory
dwelling unit at 1815 Spring
Street.

RECITALS
A. Heather and Ryan Peterson, owners of the property
located at 1815 Spring Street, St Helena, CA applied for a building permit to construct a new accessory dwelling unit; and
B. St. Helena municipal Code Section 17.116.030 requires a separate utility connection for all new accessory dwelling units which is not a conversion; and
C. The owners have petitioned that significant obstructions prevents the installation of separate utility connections and the cost of doing so would present a financial
hardship; and
D. The owners have demonstrated that the existing utility capacity is sufficient to adequately serve the proposed accessory dwelling unit; and
E. The owners have requested an exemption from the
requirement to install a separate utility connection to the proposed accessory dwelling unit.

RESOLUTION
The City Council of the City of St. Helena hereby resolves as follows:

1. Approving the request for an exemption of SHMC

17.116.030 which requires the installation of a
Agenda Item #15.1.

separate sewer connection to the proposed accessory
dwelling unit at 1815 Spring Street with the following
direction:
a. The proposed ADU may connect to the existing sewer lateral prior to the lateral entering the public Right-of-Way.
b. The applicant shall determine an alternative method for presentation and acceptance by the City Engineer to account for water consumed and sewer discharged by the ADU; and

2. Directing the City Engineer to amend building permit BD2209-019 to reflect the approval.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City
Council on November 12, 2023, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Hall: __________
Councilmember Chouteau:__________
Councilmember Hardy: __________
Councilmember Summers: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________ _____________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City
Clerk
Agenda Item #15.1.

October 23, 2023
Job No. 23-05
Joseph Leach, PE
Public Works Director/ City Engineer
City of St. Helena Public Works
1572 Railroad Avenue,
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: ADU Utility Connection Hardship Exemption Request at: 1815 Spring Street, St. Helena, CA, 94574; APN 009-322-006
Mr. Leach:

Our office was recently contacted by Heather and Ryan Peterson, the owners of 1815 Spring Street, to assist with the coordination of utility requirements related to their Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) project. As I understand it, their ADU has triggered a section of the City’s municipal code that requires dedicated public utility connections to the ADU, separate from those serving their existing main residence. After reviewing the project site constraints and City code requirements, I offer the following assessment of the situation to support the Peterson’s request for an exemption from the City code requirement to provide new utility connections to the ADU.

In terms of connection to public water and sewer utilities, the main residence and ADU are situated in a unique manner. Although the property’s frontage is only along Spring Street, existing public storm drain infrastructure between the property and Spring Street seems to have precluded the property’s connections to Spring Street’s public water and sewer infrastructure. As shown in the utility plan prepared for the ADU building permit, the existing public water and sewer services for the main residence at 1815 Spring Street are provided from Crane Avenue through a narrow five (5) foot utility easement across 1175 Crane Avenue. The five (5) foot utility easement is centered between 1175 Crane Avenue’s property line and existing garage. The utility easement width cannot be expanded to add new utility lines due to the physical constraint of the garage. The installation of a new sewer and water line within the same five foot strip of land as the existing sewer and water lines is impractical, especially considering water service laterals must be located a minimum of five (5) feet horizontally from sewer laterals per City standards. Additionally, there are several mature redwood trees and a PG&E utility pole along 1175 Crane Avenue’s frontage with Crane Avenue that make any new connections to the City’s utilities impractical at this location.
1815 Spring Street also abuts 1145 Crane Avenue to the south. However, pursuing a new easement to extend the ADU’s utilities through this property is not possible because 1145 Crane Avenue’s residential structures have been installed too close to the property line to allow trenching and installation of new underground utilities.

In reviewing the Peterson’s request, I do not believe allowing an exemption for this project would set a precedent. The public storm drain infrastructure precluding new utility connections at 1815 Spring Street only begins on the east side of Hudson Avenue and ends approximately four parcels east of Crane Avenue before changing direction to flow out of Spring Street. In all, there appears to be two other parcels with frontage along Spring Street Agenda Item #15.1.

October 23, 2023
Job No. 23-05
ADU Utility Connection Hardship Exemption Request
Engineer’s Letter of Support 2
that are affected by the public storm drain infrastructure. One of these parcels appears to be a public park that also has access to utilities from Voorhees Circle. The other parcel, 1711 Spring Street, appears to be oversaturated in terms of development based on aerial imagery. Furthermore, the public storm drain infrastructure across the frontage of 1711 Spring Street is an open channel and access to the parcel is provided by a bridge. This situation allows an easier crossing for utilities as pipes can be strapped to the bridge crossing. However, 1815 Spring Street is the only property with frontage along Spring Street where the public storm drain infrastructure consists of a concrete box culvert. This structure begins on the west side of 1815 Spring Street and extends eastward across (underneath) Crane Avenue, then converts back to an open channel. The top span of the box culvert is also the sidewalk along the frontage of 1815 Spring Street. The box culvert is approximately six (6) feet deep from the top of sidewalk down to the flowline. Therefore, utilities cannot be installed in a trench across the sidewalk. Pictures of the existing culvert and top span/sidewalk section are provided with this letter.

Our office supports the Peterson’s proposal that in return for an exemption from the requirement to connect new utility services for the ADU, they will pay the normal utility connection fees assessed by the City for the ADU. The Peterson’s would would connect the ADU to the existing water and sewer utilities serving the main residence. This seems appropriate as, in my professional opinion, the one bedroom, one bathroom ADU will have minimal to no impact on the capacity of the existing water and sewer service connections.

To prove this, sewer capacity calculations, prepared in accordance with the City of St.

Helena Water and Sewer Standards, are included with this letter. Additionally, the Peterson’s commissioned a plumbing contractor to video the existing sewer line. The video was provided to the City of St. Helena Public Works via email on October 1, 2023, and shows the existing sewer line is clean and free of obstructions.

Should you require further information or would like to discuss this project in greater detail please feel free to contact me at my direct line which is (707) 492-1191. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,
Dane Hoime, PE
Project Engineer
cc: Heather & Ryan Peterson, Owner/Applicant
Enclosures
Photographic Documentation – Existing Box Culvert & Sidewalk 1815 Spring Street - Private Sewer Lateral Capacity Determination Agenda Item #15.1.

October 23, 2023
Job No. 23-05
ADU Utility Connection Hardship Exemption Request
Engineer’s Letter of Support 3
Photographic Documentation – Existing Box Culvert & Sidewalk West Side of 1815 Spring Street, Transition from Open Channel to Box Culvert Agenda Item #15.1.

October 23, 2023
Job No. 23-05
ADU Utility Connection Hardship Exemption Request
Engineer’s Letter of Support 4
Photographic Documentation – Existing Box Culvert & Sidewalk West Side of 1815 Spring Street, Close up of Culvert Span/Sidewalk Section Agenda Item #15.1.

October 2023
Job # 23-05
Applicable Codes
City of St. Helena Water and Sewer Standards, October 27, 2015 Uniform Plumbing Code, 2021
Chapter 7, Sanitary Drainage
Section 703.0 Size of Drainage Piping
Uniform Plumbing Code, 2021 - Reference Tables
Plumbing Appliances, Appurtenances,
or Fixtures Private Public Assembly
Bathtub or Combination Bath/Shower 2 2 -
Clothes Washer, domestic, standpipe 3 3 3
Dishwasher, domestic, with
independent drain 2 2 2
Sinks, Kitchen, domestic 2 2 -
Sinks, Bar 1 - -
Sinks, Wash - 2 2
Water Closet, 1.6 GPF Gravity Tank 3 4 6

1. Only fixtures applicable to this project are provided in the table above. See UPC 2021 for full table.

Size of Pipe (Inches)
Maximum Units
Drainage Piping
Vertical
Horizontal
Maximum Length
Drainage Piping
Vertical, (feet)
Horizontal (unlimited)

1. Only the pipe size applicable to this project is provided in the table above. See UPC 2021 for full table.

2. Based on 1/4 per foot slope. For 1/8 inch per foot slope, multiply horizontal fixture units capacity by 0.8. 1815 Spring Street - Private Sewer Lateral Capacity Determination 1 1/2
Minimum Size Trap
and Trap Arm
(inches)
1 1/2
2 Section 6-2.02 Pipe Size. Service sewers shall be sized in accordance with the latest edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, but in no case smaller than four (4) inches. 703.1 Minimum Size. The minimum sizes of vertical, horizontal, or both drainage piping shall be determined from the total of fixture units connected thereto, and additionally, in the case of vertical drainage pipes, in accordance with their length.
703.2 Maximum Number of Fixture Units. Table 703.2 shows the maximum number of fixture units allowed on a vertical or horizontal drainage pipe, building drain, or building sewer of a given size; the maximum number of fixture units allowed on a branch interval of a given size; and the maximum length (in feet and meters) of a vertical drainage pipe of a given size.
1 1/2
4 1 1/2
-
3 Table 702.1: Drainage Fixture Unit Values (DFU)1
Maximum Unit Loading and Maximum Length of Drainage and Vent Piping Table 703.21
256
2162
300
1815 Spring Street - ADU
Sewer Lateral Capacity Sizing 1 of 2
Agenda Item #15.1.

October 2023
Job # 23-05
1815 Spring Street - Main Residence and ADU Fixture Count Main Residence
Plumbing Appliances, Appurtenances,
or Fixtures
Base
DFU
(Private) Total DFU
Bathtub or Combination Bath/Shower 2 8
Clothes Washer, domestic, standpipe 3 6
Dishwasher, domestic, with
independent drain 2 4
Sinks, Kitchen, domestic 2 2
Sinks, Bar 1 1
Sinks, Wash 0
Water Closet, 1.6 GPF Gravity Tank 3 12
Total 33
ADU
Plumbing Appliances, Appurtenances,
or Fixtures
Base
DFU
(Private) Total DFU
Bathtub or Combination Bath/Shower 2 2
Clothes Washer, domestic, standpipe 3 3
Dishwasher, domestic, with
independent drain 2 2
Sinks, Kitchen, domestic 2 2
Sinks, Bar 1 0
Sinks, Wash 0
Water Closet, 1.6 GPF Gravity Tank 3 3
Total 12
Main Residence + ADU = Total DFU 45 DFU's
Sewer Capacity Summary
1815 Spring Street - is served by a 4" sewer pipe. Per video by client, the existing pipe is clear and functioning Capacity - Max DFU, 4" pipe, 1/4" per foot slope 216 (UPC 2021 Table 703.2) Capacity - Max DFU, 4" pipe, 1/8" per foot slope 173 (UPC 2021 Table 703.2) Demand - 1815 Spring Street, Main Residence & ADU 45 DFU Fixture Count
4 2
2 1
1 6
4 Fixture Count
The 1815 Spring Street sewer demand does not exceed the existing sewer pipe capacity in any scenario. 0 1
1 1
1 1
1 1815 Spring Street - ADU
Sewer Lateral Capacity Sizing 2 of 2
Agenda Item #15.1.

From: Heather Peterson
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] 1815 Spring Street - public comment for City Council meeting 11/14 Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 6:09:01 PM
I am writing this public comment on item 15.1 because we are currently out of the country on a trip that could not be changed to accommodate this city counsel meeting. My husband and I along with our 2 of our 3 children are full time residents of 1815 Spring Street. We have spent the last year renovating our home and converting our garage into an ADU. We had a total budget of $200,000 to build our ADU. We have done most of the construction work ourselves to save money and stay within budget. When we went to connect to water and sewer we were given 2 bids of $65,000 to $100,000. This was assuming we could go out Crane (which the city agrees is not feasible) and does not include the additional cost of directional boring 10 ft down and significantly more across Spring St to connect to the water lateral there. We have been working with Bartelt engineering on this for the last several months who has determined that our current water supply to the house is more than adequate to cover the additional needs of the ADU. Because of these unique issues with our property, we are requesting an exemption for water connection in addition to the sewer connection exemption that public works has already recommended.

Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter, Heather & Ryan Peterson
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #15.1.

Agenda Item 15.1
1815 Spring Street
Requesting exemption for separate
water and sewer utility connections for
proposed ADU
November 14, 2023
Agenda Item #15.1.

Water Service System Code

13.04.050 (C) Water service connections—Installation generally C. Multiple Connections Prohibited Generally. No one service connection shall supply water to more than one premises.

17.116.030 (G) Fees
C. …all ADUs and JADUs that are not covered by subsection (G)(2)(b) of this section require a new, separate utility connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility.

13.04.050 (D) Water service connections—Installation generally D. If under particular circumstances it be determined by the city council that it be impracticable to install one service connection for every premises and advantageous to the department to furnish water to more than one premises through one service connection, then water may be so furnished by the department.

Agenda Item #15.1.

1815 Spring Street
Applicant’s
Proposal:
• Connect new
onsite sewer
pipe to existing
onsite pipe.
• Connect new
onsite water pipe
to existing onsite
pipe.
• No separate
water meter; no
upsize of existing
meter.

Agenda Item #15.1.

1815 Spring Street
Applicant has applied for a building permit to
install a new 800 square foot ADU.
• The applicant is requesting an exemption to the
requirement to install a separate water and sewer
utilities.
• The applicant petitions that the existing sewer
service from the sewer main line to the property
has sufficient capacity to serve the new ADU.

Agenda Item #15.1.

1815 Spring Street
Agenda Item #15.1.

1815 Spring Street
Constraints:
• Existing box culvert in front yard; cost prohibitive to install water under box; not enough cover to install over
• Not feasible to install sewer over/under box culvert
• Private utility easement on adjacent property contains existing sewer and water services
Agenda Item #15.1.

1815 Spring Street
Public Works recommends the grant of an exemption for the additional sewer connection due to the following considerations:
• Presence of the storm drain culvert fronting 1815 Spring Street precludes access to utilities in Spring Street.
• The applicant has provided an Engineering Report demonstrating the performance sufficiency of existing sewer service connections.

Public Works is not recommending to grant an exemption for the additional water connection due to the following considerations:
• Public Works is requesting the applicant to provide a more comprehensive analysis on the feasibility of alternative methods to install a separate water connection (e.g. directional drill within existing easement, alternative alignment on Spring St., upsizing existing meter, etc.)
Agenda Item #15.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Public Works
DATE: November 14, 2023
FROM: Mario Traverso, Public Works Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution granting an exemption to the building permit condition of requiring a separate utility connection for the proposed accessory
dwelling unit located at 1520 Pine Street.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Adopt the resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The purpose of this action is to request City Council to consider granting an exemption to SHMC 17.116.030 for
the proposed ADU located at 1520 Pine Street.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:

Philip Rich and Barbara Morrissette, owners of the property located at 1520 Pine Street, submitted an application for a building permit for the construction of a new 300 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Plan check comments from the Public Works Department were returned to the applicant which requested that the design plans provide for a separate utility connection (sewer and water) directly between the ADU and the utility as required by the St. Helena Municipal Code.

The City of St. Helena Municipal Code concerning accessory dwelling unit utility connections is as follows:

17.116.030(G)(2). Utility Fees
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. b. Except as described in subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section, converted ADUs and JADUs on a single-family lot that are created under subsection (D)(2)(a) of this section are not required to have a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility. Nor is a connection fee or capacity charge required.
c. Except as described in subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section, all ADUs and JADUs that are not covered by subsection (G)(2)(b) of this section require a new, separate utility connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility.

Agenda Item #15.2.

i. The connection is subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that is proportionate to the burden created by the ADU or JADU, based on either the floor area or the number of drainage-fixture units (DFU) values, as defined by the Uniform Plumbing Code, upon the water or sewer system. ii. The portion of the fee or charge that is charged by the city may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.

A separate utility connection between an ADU and the utility is required for any new ADU which is not a conversion.

DISCUSSION:

Staff is requesting City Council consider the request of Philip Rich and Barbara Morrissette granting an exemption of SHMC 17.116.030(G)(2) which requires the installation of separate utility connections for the proposed accessory dwelling unit.

Circumstances when an exemption should be considered include:

Existing Pavement Condition: It would not be preferable to require a project to install separate utility connections that would require excavations of a recently paved street.

Installation of separate utilities requires sawcutting and excavations of two 24-inch width trenches; depending on the location of the utility, the trenches may span the entire street. Typically, excavations into pavement lead to accelerated pavement deterioration. Generally, the City would prefer to not allow excavations in new roadway surfaces for five years following pavement rehabilitation.

Existing Utility Condition: It would not be preferable to require a project to install a new separate utility connection to an existing utility when the condition of the existing utility is compromised. Situations exist where the integrity of the existing in-road utility may preclude the installation of new service equipment where required to maintain horizontal separations. Additionally, circumstances may arise during the course of a project design or construction including obstructions, property line or easement conflicts or alignment geometry complications that preclude the installation of new utility services.

Existing Service Condition: It may be redundant to require a separate utility connection in a situation where the existing utility connections have been demonstrated to provide adequate service, or have been replaced, upsized or otherwise meet current City standards.

Cost: The cost associated with the installation of separate utility connections is significant. This generally requires additional permits, inspections and specialty contractors. This cost at times may eclipse the cost of the overall project. This cost disparity can create a financial hardship for the property owner.

Agenda Item #15.2.

The project owners of 1520 Pine Street have petitioned that the costs associated with the installation of separate utility connections to the proposed accessory dwelling unit are not proportional to the scope of the project and present a financial hardship.

Additionally, documentation has been submitted to Public Works to demonstrate the performance sufficiency of the existing utility connections to adequately serve the proposed accessory dwelling unit (i.e. CCTV of existing sewer lateral, presentation of calculations demonstrating capacity for both sewer discharge and water service).

Public Works concurs with the findings and recommends granting an exemption of SHMC 17.116.030(G)(2) for the proposed accessory dwelling unit located at 1520 Pine Street with the following direction:

1. The proposed ADU may connect to the existing sewer lateral prior the lateral entering the public Right-of-Way.

2. The proposed ADU shall be connected to the existing water service lateral between the existing water main and the existing meter and shall install a new meter to separately serve the ADU.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution - 1520 Pine Street
Project Plan - 1520 Pine Street
Performance Report - 1520 Pine Street
Agenda Item #15.2.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
Resolution of the City Council
of the City of St. Helena to
approve the request for an
exemption of SHMC 17.116.030
requiring the installation of
separate utility connections to
the proposed accessory
dwelling unit at 1520 Pine
Street.

RECITALS
A. Philip Rich and Barbara Morrissette, owners of the
property located at 1520 Pine Street, St Helena, CA
applied for a building permit to construct a new accessory dwelling unit; and
B. St. Helena municipal Code Section 17.116.030 requires a separate utility connection for all new accessory dwelling units which is not a conversion; and
C. The owners have petitioned that the cost of doing so would present a financial hardship; and
D. The owners have demonstrated that the existing utility capacity is sufficient to adequately serve the proposed accessory dwelling unit; and
E. The owners have requested an exemption from the
requirement to install a separate utility connection to the proposed accessory dwelling unit.

RESOLUTION
The City Council of the City of St. Helena hereby resolves as follows:

1. Approving the request for an exemption of SHMC

17.116.030 which requires the installation of separate
utility connections to the proposed accessory dwelling
unit at 1520 Pine Street with the following direction:

Agenda Item #15.2.

a. The proposed ADU may connect to the existing sewer
lateral prior the lateral entering the public Right-of-Way. b. The proposed ADU shall be connected to the existing water service lateral between the existing water main and the existing meter and shall install a new meter to separately serve the ADU; and

2. Directing the City Engineer to amend building permit BD2308-025 to reflect the approval.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City
Council on November 12, 2023, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Hall: __________
Councilmember Chouteau:__________
Councilmember Hardy: __________
Councilmember Summers: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________ _____________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City
Clerk
Agenda Item #15.2.

1683
117.321 POOL1
1684
117.320 POOL1
1685
117.346 1686POOL1 117.344 POOL1 PROPOSED ADU FF 119.44 EXISTING RESIDENCE 2 3
1 4 EXISTING SHED TO BE REMOVED
PINE STREET FS119.40 FS119.34 FS 119.37FS 118.37 FS 119.40 FS119.34TW 118.76 TW118.75 TW 118.75 TW118.75 FG/TW 118.75 GB/HP 118.66 GB 118.58 GB 118.56 GB/HP 118.60 6" AD FG 118.50 IG 118.00 6" AD FG 118.60 IG 118.10 FS 118.84

2.0% 2.0% PROPOSED ADU FF 119.44 FG 118.70 FG118.70 FG118.75 FG117.87 EG118.6 EG 118.1 FG118.34 TW 118.75 FG 118.67 FG 118.77 FG118.77 FG118.70 FG118.70 FG118.70 FG118.77 FG 118.65 FG118.71 0.5%

0.5% 1.7% EG/GB/HP 118.74 EG/GB/LP 118.33

4.1%

4.1%

3.2% FG 118.02 IG 117.69 FG 118.11 IG 117.78
5 6
7 7
7 7 118 119
118
118
117 3 LF 4" SD AT 13.7% 3 LF 4" SD AT 7.3%
118 FG 118.41 FG 118.61
8 9 AD C1.0 TYP ROCK COBBLES PLACED AT PIPE OUTFALL, TYP. 10 TYP. of 2 Job: Sheet: Scale: Drawn: Date: APN: Permit #:

BC ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND PLANNING
www.bcengineeringgroup.com
Phone: 707.542.4321
SANTA ROSA OFFICE:
418 B Street, Third Floor, Santa Rosa CA 95401
UKIAH OFFICE:
603 S. State Street, Ukiah CA 95482
10/23/2023 2802-23 MB, JF AS SHOWN 009-270-031

LANDS OF MORISSETTE

BARBARA MORISSETTE
1520 PINE STREET
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
S:\Clients\2802-23 Barbara Morrissette - 1520 Pine Street, St. Helena, CA\CAD\Civil Engineering\2802-23 Civil Plot Plan.dwg GordyB Plotted by 10/23/2023 4:10 PM C1.0 ----
REV. DESCRIPTION BY DATE 1
CIVIL PLOT PLAN 1 inch = ft ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 10 N
0 10 20 C1.0 CIVIL PLOT PLAN C1.1 SITE SECTIONS 6+EE7 INDE; DESCRIPTION OF BENCHMARK: PK NAIL POINT NUMBER 15004 ELEVATION: 182.99 FEET VRS GPS NAD83/NAVD88 CALIFORNIA ZONE II; EPOCH 2017.50, GEOID 18, APRIL 12TH, 2023 CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT 68RVE< N27E THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO PROVIDE GRADING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR A PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT P8RP26E 67A7E0EN7 VICINITY MAP NTS PR2-EC7 IN)2R0A7I2N PROJECT ADDRESS: 1520 PINE STREET ST. HELENA, CA 94574 OWNER/DEVELOPER: BARBARA MORRISSETTE 1520 PINE STREET, ST. HELENA, CA 94574 CIVIL ENGINEER: THOMAS J. BILLETER, P.E. BC ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 418 B STREET, THIRD FLOOR SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 (707) 542-4321 SURVEYOR: TERRA FIRMA SURVEYS, INC P.O. BOX 533 ST. HELENA, CA 94574 (707) 963-7565 AREA: 00.18 ACRES CIVIL PL27 PLAN DRA:ING6 )2R LAND6 2) 02RRI66E77E  PINE 67REE7 67 +ELENA CA  APN
 EAR7+:2R. 6800AR< CUT = 5.63 CY FILL = 5.21 CY NET = 0.42 CY (CUT) DISTURBED AREA = 0.02 ACRES WDID # N/A NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA = 425 SF EXACT SHRINKAGE, CONSOLIDATION AND SUBSIDENCE FACTORS AND LOSSES DUE TO CLEARING OPERATIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED. ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES AREA BASED ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXISTING GROUND AND PROPOSED FINISH GROUND AND COULD VARY ACCORDING TO THESE FACTORS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, SHALL REVIEW THE SITE AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT(S), AND SHALL PERFORM AN INDEPENDENT QUANTITY TAKEOFF AND BID ACCORDINGLY. APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION LEGEND AD AREA DRAIN APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER BSL BUILDING SETBACK LINE BW BOTTOM OF WALL AT GRADE DI DROP INLET DS DOWNSPOUT EG EXISTING GROUND EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT EX EXISTING FF FINISHED FLOOR FG FINISHED GRADE FL FLOW LINE FS FINISHED SURFACE GB GRADE BREAK GR GRATE GSL GARAGE SETBACK LINE HP HIGH POINT IG INVERT GRADE LF LINEAR FEET ME MATCH EXISTING MEP MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT TW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL SAD SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SD STORM DRAIN SO SIDE OPENING SWE SIDEWALK EASEMENT FLOW LINE (EXISTING)

FLOW LINE (PROPOSED) GRADE BREAK LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE POINT OF COORDINATION PROPERTY LINE SANITARY SEWER WATER PIPE (EXISTING)

WATER PIPE (PROPOSED)
HARDSCAPING (SAD) 6C+E0A7IC 87ILI7< PLAN SCALE: 1" = 10' KEYNOTES: VERIFY INVERT ELEVATION AT EXISTING CONNECTIONS. PROPOSED 155 LF 1" PVC WATER LATERAL. 12" MINIMUM COVER. PROPOSED 148 LF 4" PVC SANITARY SEWER LATERAL. MINIMUM SLOPE OF 2%. 12" MINIMUM COVER. SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUTS ARE REQUIRED EVERY 100', AT ANY ANGLE POINT GREATER THAN 45 DEGREES, AND AT BUILDING POINTS OF CONNECTION ASSUMED UTILITY CONNECTION POINT, SEE MEP OR ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. VERIFY PROPOSED RESIDENCE FF AND GARAGE SLAB ELEVATIONS WITH STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT PER ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. VERIFY STRUCTURAL SECTION WITH STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 5% MINIMUM SLOPE AWAY FROM ALL SIDES OF THE BUILDING. COORDINATE DOWNSPOUT LOCATIONS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. ALL DOWNSPOUTS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO PIPING NETWORKS OF AT LEAST 3” IN DIAMETER. DISCHARGE LOCATIONS OF THESE PIPE NETWORKS SHALL BE LOCATED TO PREVENT STORMWATER FROM MIGRATING TO FOUNDATIONS, SENSITIVE AREAS, AND AREAS OF EROSION POTENTIAL. PROPER ENERGY DISSIPATION DEVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT DISCHARGE LOCATIONS FOUNDATION DRAINS PER STRUCTURAL AND/OR GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS. ALL FOUNDATION DRAINS AND SUBDRAINS SHALL DISCHARGE SEPARATELY FROM ALL SURFACE STORM DRAIN INFRASTRUCTURE AND PIPES. STORM DRAIN PIPE SHALL BE PVC OR HDPE. (MEETING CALTRANS SEC. 64 SPECIFICATIONS) SITE WALL BY OTHERS 1324 CIVIL PL27 PLAN SCALE: 1" = 5' 1 inch = ft ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE N 0 5
5 10
5678910 CULVERT ELBOW 4" PVC DRAIN PIPE
4" PVC VERTICAL

DRAIN PIPE
FG RIM UPSTREAM 4" PVC DRAIN PIPE WHERE SHOWN ON PLANS FG NO SCALE AD AREA DRAIN UTILITY NOTES: 1. MAINTAIN 1' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION AND 1' VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LATERALS. WATER LINE MUST BE ABOVE SANITARY SEWER LINE.

A
C
D KEYNOTES: EXISTING WATER METER PROPOSED WATER METER AND LATERAL PER CITY STANDARD 102 PROPOSED WATER LATERAL T-OFF FOR PROPOSED WATER METER APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING WATER LATERAL EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT A
BCD PR2P26ED :A7ER 0E7ER C2N)IG8RA7I2N NOT TO SCALE
B
E
E
Agenda Item #15.2.

118
117
A--
A--
B
-- B--
C
-- C-- 110 120 130 110 120 130 0+00
EG 117.9
FG
EG 118.7
FG 119.44 0+25
EG 119.0
FG 118.68 0+50 0+75
EG
FG PROPOSED ADU FF 119.44 5.0% MIN.

5.0% MIN. TW 118.75 BW 118.36 2.0% GRADE BREAK 3.2% 110 120 130 110 120 130 0+00 EG
FG
EG 117.7
FG 117.68 0+25 0+50
EG
FG FS 119.37 FS 118.37 FS 118.87 1.4% FG 117.87 GRADE BREAK

9.9% 110 120 130 110 120 130 0+00
EG
FG
EG 117.8
FG 118.10 0+25 0+50
EG
FG PROPOSED ADU FF 119.44 2.0% FG 118.34 5.0% MIN.GRADE BREAK FG 118.84 FG 119.34 of 2 Job: Sheet: Scale: Drawn: Date: APN: Permit #:

BC ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND PLANNING
www.bcengineeringgroup.com
Phone: 707.542.4321
SANTA ROSA OFFICE:
418 B Street, Third Floor, Santa Rosa CA 95401
UKIAH OFFICE:
603 S. State Street, Ukiah CA 95482
10/23/2023 2802-23 MB, JF AS SHOWN 009-270-031

LANDS OF MORISSETTE

BARBARA MORISSETTE
1520 PINE STREET
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
S:\Clients\2802-23 Barbara Morrissette - 1520 Pine Street, St. Helena, CA\CAD\Civil Engineering\2802-23 Cross Sections.dwg GordyB Plotted by 10/23/2023 4:10 PM C1.1 ----
REV. DESCRIPTION BY DATE
2CROSS SECTIONS 6EC7I2N .E< 0AP SCALE: 1"=10' 1 inch = ft ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE N 0 5
5 10 6I7E 6EC7I2N AA HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 5' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 5' 6I7E 6EC7I2N %% HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 5' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 5' 6I7E 6EC7I2N CC HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 5' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 5' PROPERTY LINE EXISTING GRADE FINISH GRADE SITE SECTION LEGEND NOTES: 1. FOUNDATIONS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY, UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. 2. OVER EXCAVATION PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS, REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Agenda Item #15.2.

BC ENGINEERING GROUP www.bcengineeringgroup.com
418 B Street, 3rd Floor P: 707-542-4321
Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Page 1 of 6

PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL

SIZING CALCULATIONS
FOR
1520 Pine Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
APN: 009-270-031
October, 2023
Prepared by
Thomas Billeter, P.E.

Exp. September 30, 2025
Job Number: 2802-23
Agenda Item #15.2.

BC ENGINEERING GROUP www.bcengineeringgroup.com
418 B Street, 3rd Floor P: 707-542-4321
Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Page 2 of 6
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................3 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS .........................................................................................................................3 TABLE 1.1 FIXTURES.......................................................................................................................................................3 DESIGN PARAMETERS................................................................................................................................4 ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................................................4 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................................................4 APPENDIX A – CALCULATIONS .............................................................................................................5 APPENDIX B – REFERENCED DOCUMENTS ......................................................................................6 Agenda Item #15.2.

BC ENGINEERING GROUP www.bcengineeringgroup.com
418 B Street, 3rd Floor P: 707-542-4321
Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Page 3 of 6
Introduction
This analysis is for the proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) located at 1520 Pine Street in St. Helena. The lot currently encompasses 0.18 acres. The purpose for this analysis is to determine if the existing 4” abs sanitary sewer lateral has the capacity to transport the combined flows from the existing single-family residence and proposed ADU.

Existing Conditions
The property contains an existing single-family residence and a shed. The property owners have provided that the existing single-family residence contains the following fixtures:

Table 1.1 Fixtures Per Existing Single-Family Residence Fixture Type Number DFU GPM
Kitchen Sink 1 2 14.96
Garage Sink 1 2 14.96
Dishwasher 1 2 14.96
Toilet 2 3 22.44
Bathtub 0 - -
Shower 2 2 14.96
Bathroom Sink 2 1 7.48
Clothes washer 1 3 22.44
Total 15 112.20
Proposed Conditions
The proposed project entails removing the existing shed, and constructing a new ADU and swimming pool on site. Per the architectural plans for the new ADU, this development will require the below fixtures:

Table 1.2 Fixtures Per Proposed ADU and Overall Total
Fixture Type Number DFU GPM
Kitchen Sink 1 2 14.96
Garage Sink 0 - -
Dishwasher 0 - -
Toilet 1 3 22.44
Bathtub 0 - -
Shower 0 - -
Combination Bath/Shower 1 2 14.96
Bathroom Sink 1 1 7.48
Clothes washer 0 - -
Total 8 59.84
Overall Total 23 172.04
Agenda Item #15.2.

BC ENGINEERING GROUP www.bcengineeringgroup.com
418 B Street, 3rd Floor P: 707-542-4321
Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Page 4 of 6
Design Parameters
• Fixture demands are based on the California Plumbing Code 2022 table 702.1. These are based on the low flow fixtures that are required due to Title 24. • Lateral sizing analysis is based on the Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Toolbox. • Minimum sanitary sewer lateral pipe slope of 2%, per City of St. Helena Public Works Standards.
• The proposed swimming pool is shown to utilize cartridge filters and does not utilize a backwash valve, per the swimming pool designer. Therefore, no swimming pool backwash values are included in the calculations.

Analysis
The private sewer lateral system was analyzed based on fixture counts of the existing residence and proposed ADU. The fixture demands are based on the 2022 California Plumbing Code, table 702.1, where each fixture is designated a specific Drainage Fixture Unit Value (DFU). See Appendix B for table 702.1 of the 2022 California Plumbing Code. The overall DFU was then converted to Gallons per Minute (GPM).
1 DFU = approx. 7.48 GPM
23 DFU = approx. 172.04 GPM
As shown in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 above, the total GPM for the project’s final buildout condition is 172.04 GPM. The overall GPM was then converted to Cubic Feet per Second (CFS). 1 GPM = approx. 0.002228 CFS
172.04 GPM = approx. 0.38 CFS
The Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Toolbox was then used to determine if the existing 4” abs sanitary sewer lateral has the capacity to transport the project’s overall sanitary sewer rate of 0.38 CFS. This calculation can be found in Appendix A.

Conclusions
Based on the calculations provided in this report, the existing 4” abs sanitary sewer lateral has the capacity to transport the combined flows from the existing single-family residence and the proposed ADU with the required minimum pipe slope of 2%.

The model that is provided here assumes all sewage sources are operating at a peak condition, which is impractical. Therefore, the model contained is conservative.

Agenda Item #15.2.

BC ENGINEERING GROUP www.bcengineeringgroup.com
418 B Street, 3rd Floor P: 707-542-4321
Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Page 5 of 6
Appendix A – Calculations

1. Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Toolbox Calculations Agenda Item #15.2.

Hydraulic Analysis Report
Project Data
Project Title: 1520 Pine Street - Private Sewer Lateral Sizing Calculations Designer: BC Engineering Group
Project Date: Monday, October 23, 2023
Project Units: U.S. Customary Units
Notes:

Channel Analysis: 4" ABS Pipe
Notes:

Input Parameters
Channel Type: Circular
Pipe Diameter: 0.3400 ft
Longitudinal Slope: 0.0200 ft/ft
Manning's n: 0.0090
Flow: 0.3800 cfs
Result Parameters
Depth: 0.2587 ft
Area of Flow: 0.0741 ft^2
Wetted Perimeter: 0.7208 ft
Hydraulic Radius: 0.1029 ft
Average Velocity: 5.1259 ft/s
Top Width: 0.2900 ft
Froude Number: 1.7867
Critical Depth: 0.3211 ft
Critical Velocity: 4.2792 ft/s
Critical Slope: 0.0149 ft/ft
Critical Top Width: 0.16 ft
Calculated Max Shear Stress: 0.3229 lb/ft^2
Calculated Avg Shear Stress: 0.1284 lb/ft^2
Agenda Item #15.2.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Agenda Item #15.2.

BC ENGINEERING GROUP www.bcengineeringgroup.com
418 B Street, 3rd Floor P: 707-542-4321
Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Page 6 of 6
Appendix B – Referenced Documents

1. Table 702.1 of the 2022 California Plumbing Code

2. Architectural Plans

3. Swimming Pool Plan
Agenda Item #15.2.

Agenda Item #15.2.

N
N
H
F
R
S53°17 0' 0"E
149.75'
S53°17'00"E
148 9. 2'
S
3 6°4
3'0
0"W
5 0.0
0' W
M
JP OHL1 OHL2 OHL3
MBOX
115.76
115.37
114.97
115.03
114.93
114.8
1 2

16.16 7" DEC
FD 1" IP NOTAG
PM
4X12" ELM
120 3/8"
48"
61"
144"
36" 144" 141 9/16"
158 7/16"
208 7/16"
154 9/16"
39"
108"
54"
36"
60"
36"
106"
48"
36"
3'
88 5/8"

LAUNDRY

BATH CLOSET

BEDROOM

KITCHEN
HVAC

NEW CONCRETE PAD

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

POOL EQUIPMENT
4'X12'
DOWN
DOWN
STEP
POND
LAWN

STONE PATH
S
T
E
P

AC UN TI

PLANTER

STONE PATH
STEP
STEP
R" NI G" IN S DI EWALK

NOT OPENED
SHED

EXISTING
SHED

TO BE DEMO

EXISTING
SHED

TO BE DEMO

PROPOSED ADU

LOCATION

EXISTING

MAIN HOUSE

PROPOSED POOL

LOCATION
Pine St

AS NOTED
A-01

SITE PLAN, VICINITY MAP

PROJECT DATA
1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

NOT TO SCALE

VICINITY MAP
SHEET INDEX:ARCHITECTURALA-01 SITE PLAN, VICINITY MAP & PROJECT DATAA-02 PROPOSED LAYOUTA-03 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS / SECTIONA-04 PROPOSED INTERIOR ELEVATIONSA-05 PROPOSED ELECTRICAL PLAN / HVAC PLANA-06 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN / ROOF & FIREWALL DETAILSENERGYEN1.0EN1.1EN1.2CG1.0CG1.1TOPOGRAPHIC1 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PROJECT ADDRESS:1520 PINE STREET, ST HELENACA 94574APPLICANTS / PROPERTY OWNERBARBARA MORRISSETTE - PHILLIP RICH1520 PINE STREET, ST HELENACA 94574MAIN HOUSE:PARCEL NUMBER: 009-270-031-000OCCUPANCY: R3 / U RESIDENTIALSTORIES: 1 STORYCONSTRUCTION TYPE: VBMAIN HOUSE SQ FT: 1,184ADU:OCCUPANCY: R3 / U RESIDENTIALSTORIES: 1 STORYCONSTRUCTION TYPE: VBPROPOSED ADU: 300 SQ FTFIRE HAZARD ZONE: WITHIN 1 MILE OF HIGH OR VERY HIGH FHSZ2023 NCFF'SSPRINKLERS: NOT REQUIREDSCOPE OF WORK:NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR A 300 SQ FT ADU.ADU INCLUDES: 1 BEDROOM, FULL BATHROOMLAUNDRY AND KITCHENETTE.

CODE NOTES.

ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING:
2022 CA BUILDING CODE2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE2022 BUILDING ENERGY STANDARD AND ANY

APPLICABLE COUNTRY OR CITY ORDINANCES IN
EFFECT AT THE TIME OF APPLICATIONS.

CIVILC1 CIVIL PLOT PLANC1.1SECTIONSSTRUCTURALSP1 FOUNDATION / ROOF FRAMING PLANS1 STRUCTURAL DETAILSS2 STRUCTURAL DETAILSROOF TRUSSES DESIGNSEE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED

REQUIRED SPECIAL FEATURESHERS FEATURE SUMMARY
PAGE
799 Piner Rd, Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707) 595-5046
humanity-home.com
Title:

Project
Address
Drawn By
Date
Revision
Scale
EDWIN [email protected]
JUN 07, 2023
This is an original design and must not e released or copied unless applicable fees have been paid or job order placed. All dimensions and size designations given are subject to verification on job site and adjustment to fit job conditions.

Drawings for

MORRISSETTE - RICHST HELENA ADU
1520 PINE STREET, STHELENA CA, CA 94574
BARBARA MORRISSETTE & PHILLIP RICH1520 PINE STREET, ST HELENA CA, CA 94574 SITE PLAN NOTES:- PROPOSED ADU IS 4' SETBACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.- ADU AND POOL LOCATION HAVE BEEN SETTLE BASE ON PROPERTY LIMITS LINES.- EXISTING SHEDS TO BE DEMO.- POOL PERMIT HAS BEEN PROCESSED IN A SEPARATE PERMIT.

PROPERTY LIMIT

PROPERTY LIMIT EXISTING FENCE

EXISTING FENCE

EXISTING FENCE
• QUALITY INSULATION INSTALLATION (QII)• INDOOR AIR QUALITY VENTILATION• KITCHEN RANGE HOOD• VERIFIED EER/EER2• VERIFIED SEER/SEER2• VERIFIED REFRIGERANT CHARGE• AIRFLOW IN HABITABLE ROOMS (SC3.1.4.1.7)• VERIFIED HSPF2• VERIFIED HEAT PUMP RATED HEATING CAPACITY• WALL-MOUNTED THERMOSTAT IN ZONES GREATER THAN150 FT2 (SC3.4.5)• DUCTLESS INDOOR UNITS LOCATED ENTIRELY INCONDITIONED SPACE (SC3.1.4.1.8) • PV EXCEPTION 2: NO PV REQUIRED WHEN MINIMUM PVSIZE (SECTION 150.1(C)14) < 1.8 KWDC (0 KW)• VARIABLE CAPACITY HEAT PUMP COMPLIANCE OPTION(VERIFICATION DETAILS FROM VCHP STAFF REPORT,APPENDIX B, AND RA3)• ELECTRIC WATER HEATER EXCEPTION - EXCEPTION 2TO SECTION 150.1(C)8• POINT OF USE Agenda Item #15.2.

W03
D05
D01
D02
W02
D03
W01
D04
E6
4 S1
3 E3
4 E5
4 E4
4 E1
4 E2
4 49 1/2" 96" 86 1/2"
300"
6 5/8"
21"
8 3/8"
36"
4"
16" 36" 16"
76" 68"
144"
156 1/2" 28 1/2" 115"
300"
42" 60" 42"
144"
68"
36"
2'-0" X 5'-0"
19'-0" X 11'-4"
8'-11" X 5'-0"
5'-0" X 6'-0"

LAUNDRY
BATH
CLOSET

BEDROOM

KITCHEN
HVAC
CONDENSERON CONCRETE PAD.

TANKLESS WATERHEATER
1 2
4 ATTIC REGISTER24"X30"

NEW CONCRETE

LANDING

NEW CONCRETELANDING
1 HOUR RATED FIREWALLWITH EXPOSURE FROM BOTH SIDES.SEE DETAIL ON A-06 ROOF

PROJECTION

WALL SCHEDULE
2D SYMBOL WALL TYPE
INTERIOR-4 BOARD AND BATTEN

WINDOW SCHEDULE

NUMBER QTY WIDTH HEIGHT DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER COMMENTS W01 1 21 " 36 " SINGLE HUNGW02 1 36 " 18 " LEFT SLIDINGW03 1 60 " 32 " LEFT SLIDING

DOOR SCHEDULE

NUMBER QTY DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT MANUFACTURER COMMENTS D01 1 POCKET-DOOR P04 28 " 80 "D02 1 HINGED-DOOR P04 28 " 80 "D03 1 EXT. HINGED-SLAB 36 " 80 "D04 1 SLIDER-DOOR P04 46 " 80 "D05 1 EXT. SLIDER-GLASS PANEL 96 " 80 " KITCHEN GENERAL NOTES:

1. GFCI OUTLETS ABOVE COUNTER PER CODE COMPLIANCE 42" AFF.

2. DEDICATED GFCIS FOR REFRIG, MW / HOOD, RANGE, DW.

3. UNDER CABINET LIGHTING ON ALL WALL CABS.

4. SWITCHING AT ALL KITCHEN ENTRY POINTS.

5. NEW COMPLIANT LED LIGHT FIXTURES IN ALL LOCATIONS WHERE (N) LIGHTING IS INDICATED.

6. ALL LIGHT SWITCHES TO "DECORA" STYLES.

7. CHECK AND UPDATE CIRCUITS THAT TEST FAULTY.

8. LUMINARIES FOR GENERAL KITCHEN LIGHTING SHALL BE LED AND ALL THE INSTALLED WATTAGE OF LUMINARIES IN KITCHENS SHALL BE HIGH EFFICACY. GENERAL KITCHEN LIGHTING TO BE SWITCHED SEPARATELY FROM ANY INCANDESCENT LIGHTING.

9. PROVIDE MINIMUM TWO 20-AMPERE SMALL APPLIANCE BRANCH

CIRCUITS FOR KITCHEN AND DINING ROOMS TO BE WIRED WITH
MIINIMUM OF #12 COPPER PER CEC ARTICLE 210.11(C), 210.52(B), AND 220.14.

10. PROVIDE A SEPARATE BRANCH CIRCUIT SIZED AT 15 AMPERE MINIMUM FOR EACH DISHWASHER AND GARBAGE DISPOSAL.

11. PROVIDE A SEPARATE CIRCUIT FOR EACH ELECTRICAL RANGE.

BATHROOM GENERAL NOTES:

1. UPGRADE ELECTRICAL, LIGHTING, EXHAUST FAN AND CONTROLS IN BATHROOMS TO CURRENT CODES.

2. ALL PERMANENTLY INSTALLED LUMINARIES SHALL BE HIGH
EFFICACY.

RECESSED LIGHT SHALL CONTAIN SOURCES THAT ARE JA8-CERTIFIED,

NOT CONTAIN SCREW-

BASED LAMPS AND NOT CONTAIN LIGHT SOURCES THAT ARE LABELED NOT FOR USE IN ENCLOSED FIXTURES . (CALIFORNIA TITLE 24, SECTION 150).

3. LIGHT FIXTURES IN TUB OR SHOWER ENCLOSURES TO BE VAPORPROFF AND SUITABLE FOR DAMP LOCATIONS.

4. EXHAUST FANS SHALL BE CAPABLE OF 5 AIR EXCHANGES PER HOUR, AND BE ON HUMIDISTATIC CONTROLS .

5. RECEPTACLES SHALL BE 20A CIRCUITS AND GFCI PROTECTED, WITH DEDICATED 20-AMP CIRCUIT.

6. ANY NEW / REPLACED SHOWER MIXING VALVE SHALL BE PRESSURE BALANCING SET AT MAXIMUM 120 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT.

7. ALL SHOWERS DOORS AND ENCLOSURE SHALL BE TEMPERED
GLASS, MUST SWING OUTWARD.8. THE WATER CLOSETS SHALL BE 30" WIDTH CLEARENCE (15" ONCENTER) AND MIN. 24" CLEARENCE FROM ANY OBSTRUCTION IN THE FRONT. 92001 CBC, 2904)

9. ALL THE WATER CLOSETS, SHALL USE NO MORE THAN 1.28 GALLONS

PER FLUSH AND SHALL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS BY ANSI
A112.19.2 H & S CODE; SECTION 17921.3 (B)

10. ALL FAUCETS SHALL HAVE FLOW CONTROL AERATORS WHICH LIMIT WATER DELIVERY TO NO MORE THAN 1.2 GPM @60 PSI FOR LAVATORY FAUCETS, AND 1.8 GPM @80 PSI FOR SHOWER HEADS.

11. AT LEAST ONE 20-AMPERE BRANCH CIRCUIT SHALL BE
PROVIDED TO SUPPLY THE BATHROOM RECEPTACLE OUTLETS. SUCH CIRCUITS SHALL HAVE NO OTHER OUTLETS (INCLUDING BATHROOM LIGHTING AND FANS).

WILDFIRE ZONE GENERAL PLAN NOTES:

1. IN ROOF COVERINGS WHERE THE PROFILE CREATES SPACE BETWEEN THE ROOF COVERING AND COMBUSTIBLE ROOF DECKING, SPECIFY ONE OF THEFOLLOWING MEANS OF PROTECTING SPACES AT EAVES ENDS.

A. FIRE-STOPPING WITH APPROVED MATERIALS
B. ONE LAYER OF 72 POUND (32.4 KG) MINERAL-SURFACEDNON-PERFORATED CAP SHEET COMPLYING WITH ASTM D 3909

INSTALLED OVER THE COMBUSTIBLE DECKING
C. OTHERWISE CONSTRUCTED TO PREVENT INTRUSION OF FLAMES AND EMBERS

2. EXPOSED VALLEY FLASHING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH NOT LESS THAN 0.019-INCH (NO. 26 GALVANIZED SHEET GAGE)
CORROSION-RESISTANT METAL INSTALLED OVER A MINIMUM 36-INCH-WIDE UNDERLAYMENT CONSISTING OF ONE LAYER OF NO. 72 ASTM CAP SHEETRUNNING THE FULL LENGTH OF THE VALLEY.

3. ANY ROOF GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH MEANS TO PREVENT ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS.

4. SKYLIGHTS SHALL BE TEMPERED GLASS.

5. ALL VENTS (ROOF, FOUNDATION, COMBUSTION-AIR, ETC) SHALL RESIST

THE INTRUSION OF FLAMES AND EMBERS

6. VENTILATION OPENINGS FOR ENCLOSED ATTICS, EAVE SOFFIT SPACES,

ENCLOSED RAFTER SPACES FORMED WHERE CEILINGS ARE APPLIEDDIRECTLY TO THE UNDERSIDE OF ROOF RAFTERS, UNDERFLOOR

VENTILATION OPENINGS, AND VENT OPENINGS IN EXTERIOR WALLS AND EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE LISTED TO ASTM E 2886 AND COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:A. THERE SHALL BE NO FLAMING IGNITION OF THE COTTON MATERIAL DURING THE EMBER INTRUSION TESTB. THERE SHALL BE NO FLAMING IGNITION DURING THE INTEGRITY TESTPORTION OF THE FLAME INTRUSION TEST C. THE MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE OF THE UNEXPOSED SIDE OF THE VENTSHALL NOT EXCEED 662 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT (350 DEGREESCELSIUS)

7. EXTERIOR WALL FINISH SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

A. NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL (STUCCO, CEMENT FIBER BOARD, ETC) - STUCCO AND CEMENT PLASTER USED AS AN EXTERIOR WALL
COVERING SHALL BE 7/8-INCH THICK
- NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR FIRE-RETARDANT-TREATED WOOD SHAKE
USED AS AN EXTERIOR WALL COVERING SHALL HAVE ANUNDERLAYMENT OF MINIMUM 1/2-INCH FIRE-RATED GYPSUM

SHEATHING THAT IS TIGHTLY BUTTED, OR TAPED AND MUDDED, OR AN UNDERLAYMENT OF OTHER IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIALAPPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.

B. IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL

8. PATIO COVER, CARPORT AND TRELLIS CONSTRUCTION WITH ALL EXPOSED ELEMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
- NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL- 1-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANT-RATED MATERIAL- APPROVED EXTERIOR FIRE-RETARDANT TREATED WOOD- MODIFIED HEAVY TIMBER (MIN 2X TONGUE-AND-GROOVE SHEATHING, 4X6 RAFTERS/BEAMS, 6X6 POSTS)9. DECK, BALCONY, AND EXTERIOR STAIR CONSTRUCTION, WITH ALL EXPOSED ELEMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING:

A. FRAMING
- NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL- 1-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANT-RATED MATERIAL- APPROVED EXTERIOR FIRE-RETARDANT TREATED WOOD- MODIFIED HEAVY TIMBER (MIN 4X8 JOISTS, 4X10 OR 6X8 BEAMS, 6X6 POSTS)B. DECKING AND TREAD MATERIAL (ANY OF THE FOLLOWING):
- NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL- 1-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANT-RATED MATERIAL- APPROVED EXTERIOR FIRE-RETARDANT TREATED WOOD- APPROVED ALTERNATIVE DECKING MATERIAL MEETING TESTS REQUIREMENTS OF COUNTY BUILDING CODE 92.1.709A.1.4)

10. EXTERIOR GARAGE DOORS SHALL RESIST THE INTRUSION OF EMBERS INTO

THE GARAGE BY LIMITING THE SIZE OF ANY GAPS AT THE BOTTOM, SIDES, AND TOP OF THE DOOR TO 1/8 INCH OR LESS USING ONE OF THE

FOLLOWING METHODS
A. WEATHER-STRIPPING PRODUCTS WITH TENSILE STRENGTH AND FLAMMABILITY RATING PER CBC 708A.4B. DOOR OVERLAPS ONTO JAMBS AND HEADERS C. GARAGE DOOR JAMBS AND HEADERS COVERED WITH METAL FLASHING

11. PAPER-FACED INSULATION PROHIBITED IN ATTICS OR OTHER VENTILATED SPACES.

12. FENCES OR ANY STRUCTURE WITHIN 5 FEET OF BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

A. NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL
B. APPROVED EXTERIOR FIRE-RETARDANT TREATED WOOD
C. MATERIAL MEETING SAME FIRE-RESISTIVE STANDARDS AS

EXTERIOR WALLS OF BUILDINGS
N

PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
1/2" = 1'

PROPOSED LAYOUT

DOORS AND WINDOWS SCHEDULE
1/2" = 1'- 0"
PAGE
799 Piner Rd, Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707) 595-5046
humanity-home.com
Title:

Project
Address
Drawn By
Date
Revision
Scale
EDWIN [email protected]
JUN 07, 2023
This is an original design and must not e released or copied unless applicable fees have been paid or job order placed. All dimensions and size designations given are subject to verification on job site and adjustment to fit job conditions.

Drawings for

MORRISSETTE - RICHST HELENA ADU
1520 PINE STREET, STHELENA CA, CA 94574
BARBARA MORRISSETTE & PHILLIP RICH1520 PINE STREET, ST HELENA CA, CA 94574 A-02
1 PANEL READY BEVERAGE FRIDGE2 COOKTOP HOOD3 INDUCTION COOKTOP

APPLIANCES LIST
1 4 WASHER & DRYER (STACK)
EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1
2 EXTERIOR ELEVATION 2
3 EXTERIOR ELEVATION 3
4 EXTERIOR ELEVATION 4
Agenda Item #15.2.

D05
51 1/16" 96" 156 1/16"
303 1/8"
80"
144"
36"
EXTERIOR LIGHTNING MODEL TBD.

SLIDING DOORS
CLASS A COMPOSITE SHINGLE +TYVEK PROTECT 120UNDERLAYMENT BOARD AND BATTEN + TYVEK HOME WRAP.COLOR PAINT MATCHING MAIN HOUSE

FINISHED FLOORS
RIDGE VENT.FOR MORE DETAILSSEE ROOF PLAN A-06

NEW CONCRETELANDING

NEW CONCRETELANDING
GUTTER
D05 D03
36"
18"
37 9/16" 36"
36"
73 9/16"
44"
74"
21"
CL
71 1/2"
80"
36"
3:12 3:12

HVAC CONDENSERON CONCRETE PAD

TANKLESS WATER HEATER
CLASS A COMPOSITE SHINGLE +TYVEK PROTECT 120UNDERLAYMENT GUTTER
BOARD AND BATTEN + TYVEK HOME WRAP.COLOR PAINT MATCHING MAIN HOUSE D03
CL
72"
36"
144"
36" 303 1/8"
EXTERIOR LIGHTNING MODEL TBD.

HVAC CONDENSERMODEL TBD.

TANKLESSWATER HEATER

GFCI OUTLET
CLASS A COMPOSITE SHINGLE +TYVEK PROTECT 120UNDERLAYMENT RIDGE VENT.FOR MORE DETAILSSEE ROOF PLAN A-06

TANKLESS WATERPROOF OUTLET
GUTTER
60"
32" 48"
CL
72"
24" 147 1/8" 36"
3:12 3:12

HVAC CONDENSER ON CONCRETE PAD
EXTERIOR LIGHTNING MODEL TBD.

TANKLESS WATER HEATER BOARD AND BATTEN +
TYVEK HOME WRAP.COLOR PAINT MATCHING MAIN HOUSE
CLASS A COMPOSITE SHINGLE +TYVEK PROTECT 120UNDERLAYMENT D01
24" 147 1/8" 36"
3:12 3:12
GUTTER

MINI SPLIT INDOOR UNIT

SLIDING GLASS DOOR
CLASS A COMPOSITE SHINGLE +TYVEK PROTECT 120UNDERLAYMENT 6" QUARTZBACKSPLASH
EXTERIOR LIGHTINGMODEL TBD.

BATHROOM

NEW LANDINGCONCRETE PAD
D01

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

PROPOSED SECTION & MATERIAL LIST
3/8" = 1'- 0"
PAGE
799 Piner Rd, Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707) 595-5046
humanity-home.com
Title:

Project
Address
Drawn By
Date
Revision
Scale
EDWIN [email protected]
JUN 07, 2023
This is an original design and must not e released or copied unless applicable fees have been paid or job order placed. All dimensions and size designations given are subject to verification on job site and adjustment to fit job conditions.

Drawings for

MORRISSETTE - RICHST HELENA ADU
1520 PINE STREET, STHELENA CA, CA 94574
BARBARA MORRISSETTE & PHILLIP RICH1520 PINE STREET, ST HELENA CA, CA 94574 A-03

EXTERIOR
1 PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION 3/8" = 1' - 0" EXTERIOR
2 PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION (R) 3/8" = 1' - 0"

EXTERIOR
3 PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION 3/8" = 1' - 0" EXTERIOR
4 PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION (L) 3/8" = 1' - 0"
S-1 PROPOSED SECTION 3/8" = 1' - 0"

TYVEK HOME WRAP
TYVEK 120UNDERLAYMENT
CLASS A SHINGLETIMBERLINE® HDZ™ RS

MATERIAL LIST

HARDIE PANEL VERTICAL SIDING
Agenda Item #15.2.

D02
33" 35" 7 1/2"
75 1/2"
152"
108"

MINI SPLIT

HVAC UNIT
D02 D05
96"
77 1/2" 103" 42"
227 1/2"
36" 6"
18" 42"
CL
47"
108"

MINI SPLIT

HVAC UNIT

SLIDING DOORS
D05
6"
CL
55"
45"
20"
46" 14"
108"
32" 30"
107"
WALL NICHE20"W X 14"H
SCONCES.MODEL TBD
SURROUNDING TILE.

BEDROSIANS ICE WAVE
12"X24", STACKED HORIZONTAL.

SOLISTONE

TENKI HARU

HAND TOWELBAR
60"
12" 36" 12"
19 1/8"
108"

SLIDING GLASS DOORS

BATH TUB
D02
72" 35"
CL
15 3/8" 91 5/8"
107"
CL
46"
80"
CL
45"
CL
25"
108"
80"
SURROUNDING TILE.

BEDROSIANS ICE WAVE 12"X24",
STACKED HORIZONTAL.

HEATED FLOORS

THERMOSTAT
HAND TOWEL 24" BAR
D02
3" 21" 36"
36" 72"
108"
60"

BEDROOM
1 BATHROOM
3 3/4" = 1'
3/4" = 1'

INTERIOR ELEVATIONS

BATHROOM
4 3/4" = 1' BATHROOM
5 3/4" = 1' LAUNDRY
6 3/4" = 1'

KITCHEN
2 INTERIOR INTERIOR 3/4" = 1'

INTERIOR INTERIOR INTERIOR INTERIOR
1 2
3 1 PANEL READY BEVERAGE FRIDGE2 COOKTOP HOOD3 INDUCTION COOKTOP

APPLIANCES LIST
3/4" = 1'- 0"
PAGE
799 Piner Rd, Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707) 595-5046
humanity-home.com
Title:

Project
Address
Drawn By
Date
Revision
Scale
EDWIN [email protected]
JUN 07, 2023
This is an original design and must not e released or copied unless applicable fees have been paid or job order placed. All dimensions and size designations given are subject to verification on job site and adjustment to fit job conditions.

Drawings for

MORRISSETTE - RICHST HELENA ADU
1520 PINE STREET, STHELENA CA, CA 94574
BARBARA MORRISSETTE & PHILLIP RICH1520 PINE STREET, ST HELENA CA, CA 94574 A-04
Agenda Item #15.2.

R
R
R
R
GFCI
WP WP
CLCL
4'-5"
CL
3'-6"
CL
3'-6"
CL
CL
5'-8"
2'-11 1/4"

BEDROOM
GAR
DIS

CONDENSER

A/C UNIT TANKLESS
WATER
HEATER

TANKLESSWATER HEATER

HVAC UNITCONDENSER

ELECTRICAL SCHEDULE
2D SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
220V 220V GFCI WP DUPLEX DUPLEX WEATHERPROOF EXHAUST FAN WITH LIGHT EXTERIOR LIGHTING ELECTRICAL PANEL - RECESSED RECESSED DOWN LIGHT 6 SCONCE SINGLE POLE SWITCH UNDER CABINET LIGHT THERMOSTAT GFCI
WP
WP
EP
R
T
GFCI
WP
WP
EP
R
T
ELECTRI1. ALL ELELECTRI2. RECEP2.1. ALL R2.2. ALL 1CIRCUITSFAMILY RBEDROOAREAS SINTERRUPROTECT2.3. RECEALONG TMEASURINCLUDIN2.4. FOR RECEPTA2.5. RECEPHASE, 1GARAGEBASEMEWITHIN 6GROUND-FAULT-CIRCUIT PROTECTION (GFCI).2.6. MOUNT SWITCHES AT 42" A.F.F. TO CENTERLINE, U.O.N.2.7. MOUNT OUTLETS AT 12" A.F.F. TO CENTERLINE, U.O.N.2.8. WEATHER RESISTANT TYPE FOR RECEPTACLES INSTALLED IN DAMPOR WET LOCATIONS (EXTERIOR)3. SWITCHES AND OUTLETS:3.1. SWITCHES AND OUTLETS IN KITCHENS, FAMILY ROOMS, DININGROOMS, LIVING ROOMS, PARLORS, LIBRARIES, DENS, BEDROOMS,SUNROOMS, RECREATION ROOMS, CLOSETS, HALLWAYS, LAUNDRY AREAS,OR SIMILAR ROOMS OR AREAS TO COMPLY WITH 2022 CEC ARTICLE 210-12"ARC FAULT CIRCUIT PROTECTION"3.2. ALL 125-VOLT THROUGH 250-VOLT RECEPTACLES INSTALLED IN THELOCATIONS SPECIFIED IN 210.8(A)(1) THROUGH (A)(11) AND SUPPLIED BYSINGLE-PHASE BRANCH CIRCUITS RATED 150 VOLTS OR LESS TO GROUNDSHALL HAVE GROUND-FAULT CIRCUIT-INTERRUPTER PROTECTION FORPERSONNEL.

PROVIDED TO SUPPLY THE BATHROOM RECEPTACLE OUTLETS.SUCH CIRCUITS SHALL HAVE NO OTHER OUTLETS (INCLUDINGBATHROOM LIGHTING AND FANS).4.2 HEATED FLOORS SWITCH MUST INCLUDES A THERMOSTAT / TIMER5. KITCHEN/DINING:5.1. PROVIDE MINIMUM TWO 20-AMPERE SMALL APPLIANCE BRANCHCIRCUITS FOR KITCHEN AND DINING ROOMS TO BE WIRED WITHMINIMUM OF #12 COPPER PER CEC ARTICLE 210.11(C),210.52(B), AND 220.14.5.2. PROVIDE A SEPARATE BRANCH CIRCUIT SIZED AT 15 AMPEREMINIMUM FOR EACH DISHWASHER AND GARBAGE DISPOSAL.5.3. PROVIDE A SEPARATE CIRCUIT FOR EACH ELECTRICAL RANGE.

PROPOSED ELECTRIC
1/2" = 1'- 0"
PAGE
e A
403
m
Date
Revision
Scale
OS
JUN 07, 2023
This is an original design and must not e released or copied unless applicable fees have been paid or job order placed. All dimensions and size designations given are subject to verification on job site and adjustment to fit job conditions.
for
CH
ST
74 SETTE &
94574
A-05
Agenda Item #15.2.

3 : 12 3 : 12
25'
12'
1'-6"
1'-6"
28'
15'
12'

R I D G E R I D G E
DS
DS
DS
DS
GUTTER
GUTTER
NEW INTAKE ROOF VENT60NFVA EACH UNIT.

RIDGE VENT18 NFVA SQ INCHES PER LINEAL FOOT144" (12') EXHAUST VENT NEEDED FOR 144 NFVA SQ IN.

CLASS A COMPOSITE SHINGLE +TYVEK PROTECT 120UNDERLAYMENT

CLASS A COMPOSITE SHINGLECOLOR MATCHING EXISTING ROOF

NEW GUTTERSMATCHING EXISTING ONES
5/8" GYP.BD.

R-38 INSULATIONR-21 INSULATION

BOARD AND BATTENEXTERIOR WALLS

BLOCKING
TYVEK PROTECT 120UNDERLAYMENT (IN BLUE)

DECKING
R-38 INSULATION
18" OVERHANG
T
R
U
S
S
N
O
T
E
S:

1. ALL TRUSSES SHALL CARRY MANUFACTURERS STAMP.

2. ALL TRUSSES SHALL BE INSTALLED & BRACED TO MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS.3. ALL TRUSSES WILL NOT BE FIELD ALTERED WITHOUT PRIOR BUILDING DEPT.

APPROVAL OF ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS.

4. ALL TRUSSES SHALL HAVE DESIGN DETAILS & DRAWINGS ON SITE FOR FRAMING INSPECTION.

5. NON BEARING WALLS SHOULD BE HELD DOWN FROM THE TRUSS BOTTOMCHORD W/ SIMPSON STC TO INSURE THAT THE TRUSS BOTTOM CHORD WILL NOT BEAR ON THE WALL.

6. ALL CONNECTIONS OF RAFTERS, JACK OR HIP TRUSSES TO MAIN GIRDER TO BE PROVIDED BY TRUSS MANUFACTURE.

7. ALL ROOF FRAMING 24" O.C.

8. ALL NEW ROOF PITCH 3 :129. ALL OVERHANGS 18".

ATTIC VENT NOTES:- ATTIC VENTILATION OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED WITH CORROSION-RESISTANT METAL MESH WITH 1/16" MINIMUM TO 1/4" MAXIMUM OPENING.CALCULATION AREAS- VENTS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BASED ON 300 SQ FT- 144 SQ IN EXHAUST REQUIRED - 144 SQ IN INTAKE REQUIREDROOF NOTES:- FOR ROOF SLOPES FROM TWO UNITS VERTICAL IN 12UNITS HORIZONTAL (2:12), UP TO FOUR UNITS VERTICAL IN 12 UNITS HORIZONTAL (4:12),UNDERLAYMENT SHALL BE TWO LAYERS APPLIED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: APPLY A 19-INCH STRIP OFUNDERLAYMENT FELT PARALLEL TO AND STARTING AT THE EAVES. STARTING AT THE EAVE, APPLY 36-INCHWIDE SHEETS OF UNDERLAYMENT, OVERLAPPING SUCCESSIVE SHEETS 19 INCHES.DISTORTIONS IN THE UNDERLAYMENT SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ABILITY OF THE SHINGLES TO SEAL.END LAPS SHALL BE 4 INCHES AND SHALL BE OFFSET BY 6FEET (R905.2 ASPHALT SHINGLES)- THE UNDERLAYMENT SHALL BE ATTACHED WITHCORROSION-RESISTANT FASTENERS IN A GRID PATTERNOF 12 INCHES BETWEEN SIDE LAPS WITH A 6-INCHSPACING AT SIDE AND END LAPS.- UNDERLAYMENT SHALL BE ATTACHED USING METAL ORPLASTIC CAP NAILS OR CAP STAPLES WITH A NOMINALCAP DIAMETER OF NOT LESS THAN 1 INCH. METAL CAPSSHALL HAVE A THICKNESS OF NOT LESS THAN 32-GAGESHEET METAL. POWER-DRIVEN METAL CAPS SHALL HAVE AMINIMUM THICKNESS OF 0.010 INCH. MINIMUM THICKNESSOF THE OUTSIDE EDGE OF PLASTIC CAPS SHALL BE 0.035INCH. THE CAP NAIL SHANK SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN0.083 INCH FOR RING SHANK CAP NAILS AND 0.091 INCHFOR SMOOTH SHANK CAP NAILS. STAPLES SHALL BE NOTLESS THAN 21 GAGE. CAP NAIL SHANK AND CAP STAPLELEGS SHALL HAVE A LENGTH SUFFICIENT TO PENETRATETHROUGH THE ROOF SHEATHING OR NOT LESS THAN ¾INCH INTO THE ROOF SHEATHING. (R905.2 ASPHALTSHINGLES) INTERIOR SIDE: ONE LAYER 5/8 INCH TYPE XGYPSUM WALLBOARD OR WATER RESISTANTBACKER BOARD OR VENEER BASE APPLIEDPARALLEL WITH OR AT RIGHT ANGLES TO STUDSFASTENED WITH GWB-54 NAILS AT 8 INCHES O.C.OR 8 INCHES O.C. ON THE EDGES AND DOUBLENAILED IN THE FIELD AT 12 INCHES O.C. OR 1 ¼INCH TYPE W DRYWALL SCREWS AT 16 INCHES O.C..STUD CAVITY: WHEN USED WITH A 1/2-INCH TYPE X GYPSUMLAYER, SPACES BETWEEN THE STUDS ARECOMPLETELY FILLED WITH GLASS FIBER MINERALWOOL BATTS WEIGHING NOT LESS THAN 2 POUNDSPER CUBIC FOOT (0.6 POUND PER SQUARE FOOTOF WALL SURFACE) OR ROCKWOOL OR SLAGMINERAL WOOL BATTS WEIGHING NOT LESS THAN3.3 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT (1 POUND PERSQUARE FOOT OF WALL SURFACE), OR CELLULOSEINSULATION HAVING A NOMINAL DENSITY NOT LESSTHAN 2.6 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT (REFERENCEIBC TABLE 722.6.2(5)). WHEN USED WITH A 5/8INCHTYPE X GYPSUM LAYER, STUD CAVITY INSULATIONIS OPTIONAL. EXTERIOR SIDE: ONE LAYER 1/2-INCH OR ONE LAYER 5/8-INCH TYPEX GYPSUM SHEATHING, 48 INCHES WIDE APPLIEDPARALLEL TO STUDS FASTENED WITH GWB-54NAILS AT 8 INCHES O.C. OR 8 INCHES O.C. ON THEEDGES AND DOUBLE NAILED IN THE FIELD AT 12INCHES O.C. OR 1 ¼ INCH TYPE W DRYWALLSCREWS AT 16 INCHES O.C. AND ONE LAYER PYROGUARD TREATED PLYWOOD MINIMUM 15/32-INCHTHICKNESS, FASTENED IN ACCORDANCE WITHTABLE 2304.9.1 OF THE IBC COVERED WITH AWATER RESISTANT BARRIER. FRTW PLYWOOD CANBE DIRECTLY-APPLIED TO THE WOOD STUDS, ORAPPLIED TO THE GYPSUM. USE OF 1/2-INCH TYPE XGYPSUM REQUIRES THE USE OF INSULATION ASDESCRIBED IN IBC TABLE 722.6.2(5). EXTERIOR FINISH SHALL BE A MATERIAL AND OFTHE THICKNESS REQUIRED BY TABLE 1405.2 OF THEIBC INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEMANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS. VINYLSIDING SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WITH TYPE III ORTYPE IV CONSTRUCTION.

TREATED PLYWOOD1/2" MIN.
5/8" Type X

GYPSUM SHEATHING
TREATED WOODSTUDS @16" O.C.
5/8" Type X

GYPSUM SHEATHING INSULATION

BOARD AND BATTEN

EXTERIOR FINISH
PAGE
799 Piner Rd, Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707) 595-5046
humanity-home.com
Title:

Project
Address
Drawn By
Date
Revision
Scale
EDWIN [email protected]
JUN 07, 2023
This is an original design and must not e released or copied unless applicable fees have been paid or job order placed. All dimensions and size designations given are subject to verification on job site and adjustment to fit job conditions.

Drawings for

MORRISSETTE - RICHST HELENA ADU
1520 PINE STREET, STHELENA CA, CA 94574
BARBARA MORRISSETTE & PHILLIP RICH1520 PINE STREET, ST HELENA CA, CA 94574

DOWNSPOUT CATCHBASIN

NOT TO SCALE

TYPICAL ROOF DETAIL

NOT TO SCALE

ROOF PLAN
1/2" = 1'

ROOF PLAN

ROOF & FIREWALL DETAILS
A-06

AS NOTED

FIRE WALL DETAIL

NOT TO SCALE
Agenda Item #15.2.

4775 SONOMA HWY. 12
SANTA ROSA, CA 95409
deltaTenergyconsulting.com
(707) 827-0233

REV DESCRIPTION DATE
REVISIONS:

EN1.0
TITLE 24

DOCUMENTATION

DWELLING

UNIT FLOOR

AREA (FT
2 )

HOOD OVER

ELECTRIC
RANGE

HOOD OVER

NATURAL GAS
RANGE
>1500
50% CE OR 110 CFM 70% CE OR 180 CFM
>1000-1500 50% CE OR 110 CFM 80% CE OR 250 CFM
750-1000 55% CE OR 130 CFM 85% CE OR 280 CFM
<750 65% CE OR 160 CFM 85% CE OR 280 CFM

ELECTRIC READY NOTES

1. GAS RANGE: PROVIDE A DEDICATED
240V 50 AMP BRANCH CIRCUIT WITHIN 3' OF

THE RANGE LOCATION WITH A BLANK COVER
LABELED "240V READY".

2. GAS CLOTHES DRYER: PROVIDE A
DEDICATED 240V 30 AMP BRANCH CIRCUIT
WITHIN 3' OF THE DRYER LOCATION WITH A
BLANK COVER LABELED "240V READY".

3. GAS FURNACE: PROVIDE DEDICATED
240 V 30 AMP BRANCH CIRCUIT WITHIN 3' OF
FURNACE W/ BLANK COVER LABELED "240 V
READY".

4. GAS WATER HEATER: PROVIDE
DEDICATED 125 VOLT, 20 AMP ELECTRICAL

RECEPTACLE CONNECTED TO THE ELECTRIC
PANEL WITH A 120/240 VOLT 3 CONDUCTOR,
10 AWG COPPER BRANCH CIRCUIT WITHIN 3

FEET OF THE WATER HEATER LOCATION W/

BOTH ENDS OF UNUSED CONDUCTORS
LABELED "SPARE". RESERVE A SINGLE POLE
BREAKER SPACE ADJACENT TO 125 V WATER

HEATER BREAKER LOCATION LABELED
"FUTURE 240 V USE".

5. ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (ESS)
READY: PROVIDE A DEDICATED CONDUIT

FROM THE MAIN SERVICE PANEL TO A

SUBPANEL LOCATED IN THE GARAGE (SEE

ELECTRICAL PLAN FOR LOCATION) WITH A

MINIMUM OF FOUR BRANCH CIRCUITS TO THE
FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:
· REFRIGERATOR
· ONE LIGHTING CIRCUIT NEAR THE

PRIMARY EGRESS
· ONE OUTLET CIRCUIT SUPPLY A

SLEEPING ROOM
· AT LEAST ONE OTHER LOCATION

ALL BRANCH CIRCUITS MAY BE SUPPLIED BY

THE MAIN SERVICE PANEL PRIOR TO THE
INSTALLATION OF AN ESS. CONDUIT SHALL BE
NOT LESS THAN ONE INCH IN DIAMETER. THE

SUBPANEL SUPPLYING THE BRANCH CIRCUITS
MUST BE LABELED "SUBPANEL SHALL
INCLUDE ALL BACKED-UP LOAD CIRCUITS"

THE MAIN PANELBOARD SHALL HAVE A
MINIMUM BUSBAR RATING OF 225 AMPS.

SUFFICIENT SPACE SHALL BE RESERVED TO

ALLOW FUTURE INSTALLATION OF A SYSTEM

ISOLATION EQUIPMENT/TRANSFER SWITCH
WITHIN 3 FEET OF THE MAIN PANELBOARD.

CONDUIT SHALL BE INSTALLED BETWEEN

THE PANELBOARD AND THE SYSTEM

ISOLATION EQUIPMENT/TRANSFER SWITCH

LOCATION TO ALLOW THE CONNECTION OF
BACKUP POWER SOURCE.

RANGE HOOD NOTES:

1. KITCHEN RANGE HOODS MUST

HAVE DEMAND-CONTROL OR
CONTINUOUS MECHANICAL EXHAUST.

2. RANGE HOODS MUST MEET EITHER

MINIMUM AIRFLOW OR CAPTURE

EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS, ACCORDING
TO THE FOLLOWING TABLE.

DATE:

DRAWN BY: J.G.
07/26/23

MORRISSETTE-RICH ADU
1520 PINE ST, ST HELENA, CA 95472
APN: 009-270-031
4775 SONOMA HWY. 12
SANTA ROSA, CA 95409
deltaTenergyconsulting.com
(707) 827-0233

REV DESCRIPTION DATE
REVISIONS:

EN1.1
TITLE 24

DOCUMENTATION
DATE:

DRAWN BY: J.G.
07/26/23

MORRISSETTE-RICH ADU
1520 PINE ST, ST HELENA, CA 95472
APN: 009-270-031
4775 SONOMA HWY. 12
SANTA ROSA, CA 95409
deltaTenergyconsulting.com
(707) 827-0233

REV DESCRIPTION DATE
REVISIONS:

EN1.2
TITLE 24

DOCUMENTATION
DATE:

DRAWN BY: J.G.
07/26/23

MORRISSETTE-RICH ADU
1520 PINE ST, ST HELENA, CA 95472
APN: 009-270-031
4775 SONOMA HWY. 12
SANTA ROSA, CA 95409
deltaTenergyconsulting.com
(707) 827-0233

REV DESCRIPTION DATE
REVISIONS:

CG1.0

CALGREEN
CHECKLIST MORRISSETTE-RICH ADU 1520 PINE ST, ST HELENA, CA 95472 APN: 009-270-031 DATE:

DRAWN BY: J.G.
07/26/23
4775 SONOMA HWY. 12
SANTA ROSA, CA 95409
deltaTenergyconsulting.com
(707) 827-0233

REV DESCRIPTION DATE
REVISIONS:

CG1.1

CALGREEN

CHECKLIST
DATE:

DRAWN BY: J.G.
07/26/23

MORRISSETTE-RICH ADU
1520 PINE ST, ST HELENA, CA 95472
APN: 009-270-031
Agenda Item #15.2.

1683
117.321 POOL1
1684
117.320 POOL1
1685
117.346 1686POOL1 117.344 POOL1 PROPOSED ADU FF 119.44 EXISTING RESIDENCE 2 3
1 4 EXISTING SHED TO BE REMOVED
PINE STREET FS119.40 FS119.34 FS 119.37FS 118.37 FS 119.40 FS119.34TW 118.76 TW118.75 TW 118.75 TW118.75 FG/TW 118.75 GB/HP 118.66 GB 118.58 GB 118.56 GB/HP 118.60 6" AD FG 118.50 IG 118.00 6" AD FG 118.60 IG 118.10 FS 118.84

2.0% 2.0% PROPOSED ADU FF 119.44 FG 118.70 FG118.70 FG118.75 FG117.87 EG118.6 EG 118.1 FG118.34 TW 118.75 FG 118.67 FG 118.77 FG118.77 FG118.70 FG118.70 FG118.70 FG118.77 FG 118.65 FG118.71 0.5%

0.5% 1.7% EG/GB/HP 118.74 EG/GB/LP 118.33

4.1%

4.1%

3.2% FG 118.02 IG 117.69 FG 118.11 IG 117.78
5 6
7 7
7 7 118 119
118
118
117 3 LF 4" SD AT 13.7% 3 LF 4" SD AT 7.3%
118 FG 118.41 FG 118.61
8 9 AD C1.0 TYP ROCK COBBLES PLACED AT PIPE OUTFALL, TYP. 10 TYP. of 2 Job: Sheet: Scale: Drawn: Date: APN: Permit #:

BC ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND PLANNING
www.bcengineeringgroup.com
Phone: 707.542.4321
SANTA ROSA OFFICE:
418 B Street, Third Floor, Santa Rosa CA 95401
UKIAH OFFICE:
603 S. State Street, Ukiah CA 95482 06/29/2023 2802-23 MB, JF AS SHOWN 009-270-031

LANDS OF MORISSETTE

BARBARA MORISSETTE
1520 PINE STREET
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
S:\Clients\2802-23 Barbara Morrissette - 1520 Pine Street, St. Helena, CA\CAD\Civil Engineering\2802-23 Civil Plot Plan.dwg Marcel Plotted by 8/1/2023 11:43 AM C1.0 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ---- REV. DESCRIPTION BY DATE 1CIVIL PLOT PLAN 1 inch = ft ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 10 N
0 10 20 C1.0 CIVIL PLOT PLAN C1.1 SITE SECTIONS 6+EE7 INDE; DESCRIPTION OF BENCHMARK: PK NAIL POINT NUMBER 15004 ELEVATION: 182.99 FEET VRS GPS NAD83/NAVD88 CALIFORNIA ZONE II; EPOCH 2017.50, GEOID 18, APRIL 12TH, 2023 CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT 68RVE< N27E THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO PROVIDE GRADING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR A PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT P8RP26E 67A7E0EN7 VICINITY MAP NTS PR2-EC7 IN)2R0A7I2N PROJECT ADDRESS: 1520 PINE STREET ST. HELENA, CA 94574 OWNER/DEVELOPER: BARBARA MORRISSETTE 1520 PINE STREET, ST. HELENA, CA 94574 CIVIL ENGINEER: THOMAS J. BILLETER, P.E. BC ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 418 B STREET, THIRD FLOOR SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 (707) 542-4321 SURVEYOR: TERRA FIRMA SURVEYS, INC P.O. BOX 533 ST. HELENA, CA 94574 (707) 963-7565 AREA: 00.18 ACRES CIVIL PL27 PLAN DRA:ING6 )2R LAND6 2) 02RRI66E77E  PINE 67REE7 67 +ELENA CA  APN
 EAR7+:2R. 6800AR< CUT = 5.63 CY FILL = 5.21 CY NET = 0.42 CY (CUT) DISTURBED AREA = 0.02 ACRES WDID # N/A NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA = 425 SF EXACT SHRINKAGE, CONSOLIDATION AND SUBSIDENCE FACTORS AND LOSSES DUE TO CLEARING OPERATIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED. ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES AREA BASED ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXISTING GROUND AND PROPOSED FINISH GROUND AND COULD VARY ACCORDING TO THESE FACTORS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, SHALL REVIEW THE SITE AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT(S), AND SHALL PERFORM AN INDEPENDENT QUANTITY TAKEOFF AND BID ACCORDINGLY. APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION LEGEND AD AREA DRAIN APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER BSL BUILDING SETBACK LINE BW BOTTOM OF WALL AT GRADE DI DROP INLET DS DOWNSPOUT EG EXISTING GROUND EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT EX EXISTING FF FINISHED FLOOR FG FINISHED GRADE FL FLOW LINE FS FINISHED SURFACE GB GRADE BREAK GR GRATE GSL GARAGE SETBACK LINE HP HIGH POINT IG INVERT GRADE LF LINEAR FEET ME MATCH EXISTING MEP MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT TW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL SAD SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SD STORM DRAIN SO SIDE OPENING SWE SIDEWALK EASEMENT FLOW LINE (EXISTING) FLOW LINE (PROPOSED) GRADE BREAK LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE POINT OF COORDINATION PROPERTY LINE SANITARY SEWER WATER PIPE (EXISTING) WATER PIPE (PROPOSED) HARDSCAPING (SAD) 6C+E0A7IC 87ILI7< PLAN SCALE: 1" = 10' KEYNOTES: VERIFY INVERT ELEVATION AT EXISTING CONNECTIONS. PROPOSED 48 LF 1" PVC WATER LATERAL. 12" MINIMUM COVER. PROPOSED 151 LF 4" PVC SANITARY SEWER LATERAL. MINIMUM SLOPE OF 2%. 12" MINIMUM COVER. ASSUMED UTILITY CONNECTION POINT, SEE MEP OR ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. VERIFY PROPOSED RESIDENCE FF AND GARAGE SLAB ELEVATIONS WITH STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT PER ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. VERIFY STRUCTURAL SECTION WITH STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 5% MINIMUM SLOPE AWAY FROM ALL SIDES OF THE BUILDING. COORDINATE DOWNSPOUT LOCATIONS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. ALL DOWNSPOUTS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO PIPING NETWORKS OF AT LEAST 3” IN DIAMETER. DISCHARGE LOCATIONS OF THESE PIPE NETWORKS SHALL BE LOCATED TO PREVENT STORMWATER FROM MIGRATING TO FOUNDATIONS, SENSITIVE AREAS, AND AREAS OF EROSION POTENTIAL. PROPER ENERGY DISSIPATION DEVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT DISCHARGE LOCATIONS FOUNDATION DRAINS PER STRUCTURAL AND/OR GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS. ALL FOUNDATION DRAINS AND SUBDRAINS SHALL DISCHARGE SEPARATELY FROM ALL SURFACE STORM DRAIN INFRASTRUCTURE AND PIPES. STORM DRAIN PIPE SHALL BE PVC OR HDPE. (MEETING CALTRANS SEC. 64 SPECIFICATIONS) SITE WALL BY OTHERS 1 3
24 CIVIL PL27 PLAN SCALE: 1" = 5' 1 inch = ft ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE N 0 5
5 10
5678910 CULVERT ELBOW 4" PVC DRAIN PIPE
4" PVC VERTICAL
DRAIN PIPE FG RIM UPSTREAM 4" PVC DRAIN PIPE WHERE SHOWN ON PLANS FG NO SCALE AD AREA DRAIN UTILITY NOTES: 1. MAINTAIN 5' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION AND 1' VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LATERALS. 2. MAINTAIN 12" MIN. COVER FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES. MAINTAIN 18" MIN. COVER FOR ELECTRICAL LINES.

Agenda Item #15.2.

118
117
A--
A--
B
-- B--
C
-- C-- 110 120 130 110 120 130 0+00 EG 117.9
FG
EG 118.7
FG 119.44 0+25
EG 119.0
FG 118.68 0+50 0+75 EG
FG PROPOSED ADU FF 119.44 5.0% MIN.

5.0% MIN. TW 118.75 BW 118.36 2.0% GRADE BREAK 3.2% 110 120 130 110 120 130 0+00 EG FG
EG 117.7
FG 117.68 0+25 0+50 EG
FG FS 119.37 FS 118.37 FS 118.87 1.4% FG 117.87 GRADE BREAK

9.9% 110 120 130 110 120 130 0+00 EG
FG
EG 117.8
FG 118.10 0+25 0+50 EG
FG PROPOSED ADU FF 119.44 2.0% FG 118.34 5.0% MIN.GRADE BREAK FG 118.84 FG 119.34 of 2 Job: Sheet: Scale: Drawn: Date: APN: Permit #:

BC ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND PLANNING
www.bcengineeringgroup.com
Phone: 707.542.4321
SANTA ROSA OFFICE:
418 B Street, Third Floor, Santa Rosa CA 95401
UKIAH OFFICE:
603 S. State Street, Ukiah CA 95482 06/29/2023 2802-23 MB, JF AS SHOWN 009-270-031

LANDS OF MORISSETTE

BARBARA MORISSETTE
1520 PINE STREET
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
S:\Clients\2802-23 Barbara Morrissette - 1520 Pine Street, St. Helena, CA\CAD\Civil Engineering\2802-23 Cross Sections.dwg Marcel Plotted by 8/1/2023 11:43 AM C1.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ---- REV. DESCRIPTION BY DATE2CROSS SECTIONS 6EC7I2N .E< 0AP SCALE: 1"=10' 1 inch = ft ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE N 0 5
5 10 6I7E 6EC7I2N AA HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 5' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 5' 6I7E 6EC7I2N %% HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 5' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 5' 6I7E 6EC7I2N CC HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 5' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 5' PROPERTY LINE EXISTING GRADE FINISH GRADE SITE SECTION LEGEND NOTES: 1. FOUNDATIONS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY, UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. 2. OVER EXCAVATION PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS, REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Agenda Item #15.2.

1. All work shall comply with 2022 CBC and applicable local ordinances. 2. Do not scale drawings. 3. Details not shown, detailed, or called out shall be constructed to the same size and character as for similar conditions which are shown and detailed. Contact EOR for guidance if uncertain of applicable detail in such cases. 4. The contractor shall warrant that all materials and workmanship are in compliance with the approved drawings and specifications. All changes shall be brought to the attention of the EOR for review and approval. 5. Nailing not specifically indicated shall be per CBC Table 2304.9.1

6. U.N.O., all lumber shall be:
? Posts, beams, headers, girders DF #1 or better
? Joists, studs, rafters, plates DF #2 or better

7. Floor sheathing to be ¾”CDX T&G APA rated Exposure 1 or 2. Lay with strength axis perpendicular to framing members, stagger sheets, and glue and nail with 10d COM @ 6”/12”oc UNO. 8. Roof sheathing to be ½” CDX 32/16 APA rated exposure 1. Lay with strength axis perpendicular to framing members, stagger sheets, and nail with 8d Com @ 6”/12”oc UNO. 9. Shear walls indicated on drawings are below the level shown UNO. 10. Cripple walls shall be framed with same size or larger studs than the level above. 11. Cripple walls supporting more than one level shall be framed with 2x6 studs. 12. Concrete shall be normal weight, 5-sack, 2500 psi @ 28 days. 13. Rebar shall be:
? #4 and smaller 40 grade
? #5 and larger 60 grade

14. Threaded rods to be per ASTM A36 or ASTM F-1554 GR36. 15. All framing hardware by Simpson Strong Tie, Inc. 16. All engineered lumber by Weyerhauser, Inc:
? I-joist shall be per Trus Joist per ICC-ES ESR-1153 or approved equivalent. ? LSL (laminated strand lumber) shall be TimberStrand LSL by Trus Joist per ICC-ES ESR-1387. ? LVL (laminated veneer lumber) shall be Microlam LVL by Trus Joist per ICC-ES ESR-1387. ? PSL (parallel strand lumber) shall be Parallam PSL by Trrus Joist per ICC-ES ESR 1387. 17. Epoxy to be Simpson SET-XP or equivalent per ICC-ES ESR-2508. Follow manufacturer's installation procedures. Provide Special Inspection. 18. Steel hardware, bolts, nails, and other fasteners in contact with pressure treated wood shall be hot dipped galvanized, stainless steel, or otherwise coated as required by manufacturer. See pressure treated material for manufacturer's specific requirements. 19. Structural Observation per CBC 1709 shall be provided for existing foundation conditions and general structural framing. Contact Del Carlo Engineering 48 hours prior to schedule observations.

Vertical Loads: DL LL
Roof: 15 20
Floor SOG
Soils:Per Geotech report #4140.0 by Bauer & Assoc, 3/10/23 Lateral Loads:

Wind V3s = 110mph, Exp C
Seismic:

1. I = 1.0

2. SS = 1.817; S1 = 0.660

3. SDS = 1.211; SD1 = 0.748

4. Site Class = D

5. Design Category = D

6. LFRS = Light frame shear walls

7. Design Base Shear = 1,100#

8. Cs = 0.186

9. R = 6.5

10. Analysis Procedure = Simplified Design Procedure
Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"
Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" Agenda Item #15.2.

Agenda Item #15.2.

3" 3"
3" 3" 3"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3"
Scale: 3/4" = 1'-0"
Scale: 3/4" = 1'-0"
Scale: 3/4" = 1'-0"
Scale: 3/4" = 1'-0"
Scale: 3/4" = 1'-0" Agenda Item #15.2.

Alpine, an ITW Company
155 Harlem Ave
North Building, 4th Floor
Glenview, IL 60025
Phone: (800)877-3678 (916)387-0116
Fax: (916)387-1110
www.alpineitw.com
Site Information: Page 1:

Customer: American Truss Company, Inc. Job Number: 23.591Z Job Description: MORRISSETTE ADU
Address: 1520 PINE STREET, SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
Job Engineering Criteria:

Design Code: CBC 2022 Res IntelliVIEW Version: 22.02.01 JRef #: 1XS88800005
Wind Standard: ASCE 7-16 Wind Speed (mph): 110 Design Loading (psf): 40.00 Building Type: Closed
This package contains general notes pages, 2 truss drawing(s) and 3 detail(s).

Item Drawing Number Truss Item Drawing Number Truss
1 227.23.0953.49350 A1 2 227.23.0953.53293 A2
3 A11515ENC160118 4 GABRST160118
5 GBLLETIN0118
#%INDEX?$
$%Lbl:Cover Sheet?$
08/15/2023
Agenda Item #15.2.

General Notes
Truss Design Engineer Scope of Work, Design Assumptions and Design Responsibilities:

The design responsibilities assumed in the preparation of these design drawings are those specified in ANSI/TPI 1, Chapter 2; and the National Design Standard for Metal Plate Connected Wood Truss Construction, by the Truss Plate Institute. The truss component designs conform to the applicable provisions of ANSI/TPI 1 and NDS, the National Design Specification for Wood Construction by AWC. The truss component designs are based on the specified loading and dimension information furnished by others to the Truss Design Engineer. The Truss Design Engineer has no duty to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by others and may rely on that information without liability. The responsibility for verification of that information remains with others neither employed nor controlled by the Truss Design Engineer. The Truss Design Engineer’s seal and signature on the attached drawings, or cover page listing these drawings, indicates acceptance of professional engineering responsibility solely for the truss component designs and not for the technical information furnished by others which technical information and consequences thereof remain their sole responsibility.

The suitability and use of these drawings for any particular structure is the responsibility of the Building Designer in accordance with ANSI/TPI 1 Chapter 2. The Building Designer is responsible for determining that the dimensions and loads for each truss component match those required by the plans and by the actual use of the individual component, and for ascertaining that the loads shown on the drawings meet or exceed applicable building code requirements and any additional factors required in the particular application. Truss components using metal connector plates with integral teeth shall not be placed in environments that will cause the moisture content of the wood in which plates are embedded to exceed 19% and/or cause corrosion of connector plates and other metal fasteners.

The Truss Design Engineer shall not be responsible for items beyond the specific scope of the agreed contracted work set forth herein, including but not limited to: verifying the dimensions of the truss component, calculation of any of the truss component design loads, inspection of the truss components before or after installation, the design of temporary or permanent bracing and their attachment required in the roof and/or floor systems, the design of diaphragms or shear walls, the design of load transfer connections to and from diaphragms and shear walls, the design of load transfer to the foundation, the design of connections for truss components to their bearing supports, the design of the bearing supports, installation of the truss components, observation of the truss component installation process, review of truss assembly procedures, sequencing of the truss component installation, construction means and methods, site and/or worker safety in the installation of the truss components and/or its connections.

This document may be a high quality facsimile of the original engineering document which is a digitally signed electronic file with third party authentication. A wet or embossed seal copy of this engineering document is available upon request.

Temporary Lateral Restraint and Bracing:

Temporary lateral restraint and diagonal bracing shall be installed according to the provisions of BCSI chapters B1, B2, B7 and/or B10 (Building Component Safety Information, by TPI and SBCA), or as specified by the Building Designer or other Registered Design Professional. The required locations for lateral restraint and/or bracing depicted on these drawings are only for the permanent lateral support of the truss members to reduce buckling lengths, and do not apply to and may not be relied upon for the temporary stability of the truss components during their installation.

Permanent Lateral Restraint and Bracing:

The required locations for lateral restraint or bracing depicted on these drawings are for the permanent lateral support of the truss members to reduce buckling lengths. Permanent lateral support shall be installed according to the provisions of BCSI chapters B3, B7 and/or B10, or as specified by the Building Designer or other Registered Design Professional.

These drawings do not depict or specify installation/erection bracing, wind bracing, portal bracing or similar building stability bracing which are parts of the overall building design to be specified, designed, and detailed by the Building Designer.

Connector Plate Information:

Alpine connector plates are made of ASTM A653 or ASTM A1063 galvanized steel with the following designations, gauges and grades: W=Wave, 20ga, grade 40; H=High Strength, 20ga, grade 60; S=Super Strength, 18ga, grade 60.

Information on model code compliance is contained in the ICC Evaluation Service report ESR-1118, available on-line at www.icc-es.org.

Fire Retardant Treated Lumber:

Fire retardant treated lumber must be properly re-dried and maintained below 19% or less moisture level through all stages of construction and usage. Fire retardant treated lumber may be more brittle than untreated lumber. Special handling care must be taken to prevent breakage during all handling activities.

#%NOSEAL?$ Agenda Item #15.2.

General Notes (continued)
Key to Terms:

Information provided on drawings reflects a summary of the pertinent information required for the truss design. Detailed information on load cases, reactions, member lengths, forces and members requiring permanent lateral support may be found in calculation sheets available upon written request.

BCDL = Bottom Chord standard design Dead Load in pounds per square foot.

BCLL = Bottom Chord standard design Live Load in pounds per square foot.

CL = Certified lumber.

Des Ld = total of TCLL, TCDL, BCLL and BCDL Design Load in pounds per square foot.

FRT = Fire Retardant Treated lumber.

FRT-DB = D-Blaze Fire Retardant Treated lumber.

FRT-DC = Dricon Fire Retardant Treated lumber.

FRT-FP = FirePRO Fire Retardant Treated lumber.

FRT-FL = FlamePRO Fire Retardant Treated lumber.

FRT-FT = FlameTech Fire Retardant Treated lumber.

FRT-PG = PYRO-GUARD Fire Retardant Treated lumber.

FRT-PR = ProWood Fire Retardant Treated lumber.
g = green lumber.

HORZ(LL) = maximum Horizontal panel point deflection due to Live Load, in inches.

HORZ(TL) = maximum Horizontal panel point long term deflection in inches, due to Total Load, including creep adjustment.

HPL = additional Horizontal Load added to a truss Piece in pounds per linear foot or pounds.

Ic = Incised lumber.

FJ = Finger Jointed lumber.

L/# = user specified divisor for limiting span/deflection ratio for evaluation of actual L/defl value.

L/defl = ratio of Length between bearings, in inches, divided by the vertical Deflection due to creep, in inches, at the referenced panel point. Reported as 999 if greater than or equal to 999.

Loc = Location, starting location of left end of bearing or panel point (joint) location of deflection.

Max BC CSI = Maximum bending and axial Combined Stress Index for Bottom Chords for all load cases.

Max TC CSI = Maximum bending and axial Combined Stress Index for Top Chords for all load cases.

Max Web CSI= Maximum bending and axial Combined Stress Index for Webs for all load cases.

NCBCLL = Non-Concurrent Bottom Chord design Live Load in pounds per square foot.

PL = additional Load applied at a user specified angle on a truss Piece in pounds per linear foot or pounds.

PLB = additional vertical load added to a Bottom chord Piece of a truss in pounds per linear foot or pounds PLT = additional vertical load added to a Top chord Piece of a truss in pounds per linear foot or pounds.

PP = Panel Point.

R = maximum downward design Reaction, in pounds, from all specified gravity load cases, at the indicated location (Loc). -R = maximum upward design Reaction, in pounds, from all specified gravity load cases, at the identified location (Loc).

Rh = maximum horizontal design Reaction in either direction, in pounds, from all specified gravity load cases, at the indicated location (Loc).

RL = maximum horizontal design Reaction in either direction, in pounds, from all specified non-gravity (wind or seismic) load cases, at the indicated location (Loc).

Rw = maximum downward design Reaction, in pounds, from all specified non-gravity (wind or seismic) load cases, at the identified location (Loc).

TCDL = Top Chord standard design Dead Load in pounds per square foot.

TCLL = Top Chord standard design Live Load in pounds per square foot.

U = maximum Upward design reaction, in pounds, from all specified non-gravity (wind or seismic) load cases, at the indicated location (Loc).

VERT(CL) = maximum Vertical panel point deflection in inches due to Live Load and Creep Component of Dead Load in inches.

VERT(CTL) = maximum Vertical panel point deflection ratios due to Live Load and Creep Component of Dead Load, and maximum long term Vertical panel point deflection in inches due to Total load, including creep adjustment.

VERT(LL) = maximum Vertical panel point deflection in inches due to Live Load.

VERT(TL) = maximum Vertical panel point long term deflection in inches due to Total load, including creep adjustment.

W = Width of non-hanger bearing, in inches.

Refer to ASCE-7 for Wind and Seismic abbreviations.

Uppercase Acronyms not explained above are as defined in TPI 1.