Agenda, regular meeting — St. Helena City Council, December 12, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

a Property Base Map
Fixed improvements mapping
d Conflict/ClashDetAection
Topography of Curb, gutter and Buildings
b
c
f
UtilityUpgrades and Mapping
e Temporary Construction Easements/CaltransEncroachmentPermitting g Address Bike/Pedimprovements with Planning Documents
h Public Outreach (incl. Community Meeting)
i Soil Samples and GeotechnicalInvestigation
Deliverable: Background Data for Grayson Avenue and South Crane Avenue J -5 I-‘ I-‘ I-‘ I-‘ I-‘ id |-' U1 l\) LA-I
I-|
4 16 24

I-' I-'
$14319
$21542
$
143
$19
215
$42
1892
$
1452
$
9922
$692
$
2101
$
2432
$
1140
$274 9
0 $9
9922
$692
2101
1-
‘ ' er en en
«A as an
en» en6» {f9 an "' 3" >1 5*’ 3" 5“ N P” 3“ oo 00 L11 H to I-' .l> A 00 o :2. N i- i- LD uu U1 U3 uu o oLu 0 \I M N M N
$209
$274
£9l-‘
300
I-I A N O‘: O -I: r IIIUIIIIIII1]
$20044
£5
$
2279
$4
1197
$
1910
$
2504
$
1113
$836
$
1840
$548

2.504
$836
L840
$548
$
18 $21056 $2 50 $
3L8
06 $11286 52200$
1148
6 $1650 $
1170
$1,
840
$1,
803
$548 $548

DIIIIIII DHIIEEEI DIIIIIIII
$1,509
$1,509
$200 $
1709
1709 _
7 IllaIIIIIIIUIIIIIIII]IIIIIII
III
a Prepare PreliminaryEnineerin Plans
I
Identify and Resolve Conflicts between Rehabilitation and ExistinConditions Identify Construction Easements and Eno a c e Caltra ns UtilityRelocations and Upgrades e PreparePre|iminaryEngineer's Estimate -9-.

City Review Meetin
- ActiveTransportation and Sustainability Committee Meetin - h Deliverable: Preliminary Engineering Plans for Grayson Av and South Crane Ave Ell!!! DIHIII EEEI
[III
a Prepare FinalEngineering Plans, Specifications and Estimate 75% Submittal
90% Submittal
100% Submittal
b Community and ActiveTransportation and Sustainability Committee Meeting c CEQA- Categorical Exemption
-+.

Deliverable: FinalEngineering Plans for Grayson Av and South Crane Ave l\J Ch-' U)
Reimbursable Expenses
Printin, Postae, and Travel
Subtotal Reimbursable Expenses
I“B|(l"°° ‘YEARS

ENGINEERS / SURVEYORSI PLAN
NERS
_§§9.; 5E08‘ ‘5as2'§
w5E.. Grayson Avenue and South Crane
RGH
Consultants Geotechnical Engineer
Fee Rehablllt Proposal gEE3-:6: atlon
n. o 3GI-
—
BKF Engineers
0! II
II.

II. 2no G: on V n e n Sout. C ne nu Reh bili ‘no
Task1 Data Collection
Tasklsubtotalz 7 25 55 12 136 80 31 $60,835 $13,200
Task2 P elimina En ineerin Plans
Task2 Subtotal: 10 34 48 40 72 0 20 $33,992 2,750
Task 3 Final Construction En ineerin
11 40 52 100 152 0 35 $56,053 $6,600
$22,750 Total Fee
$74,035
36,742
62,653
$175,139
Page of 1920
BKF — R1
9-
05 and South Rehab Crane G
yso
n
To
tal
Lab Plus Reimbursable Expense $152,389 or
E
x
hi
bi
t
B
Come
n
s
at
i
Task S
u
b
to
ta
l:

Subto
tal Fee Lab
or
Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 156 of 513 ends

I§q
M. §Q§SlFl§ATION HQURLYRAT§

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Principal/VicePresident $251.00
Senior AssociateNice President $225.00
Associate $219.00
Senior Project Manager | Senior Technical Manager $214.00 Project Manager| Technical Manager $209.00
Engineering Manager | Suweying Manager| Planning Manager $193.00

TECHNICALSTAFF
Senior Project Engineer| Senior Project Surveyor | Senior Project Planner $179.00 Project Engineer | Project Surveyor | Project Planner $157.00 DesignEngineer | Staff Surveyor | Staff Planner $137.00 BIMSpecialistI,II,III $137.00 - $157.00 - $179.00
Technician I,II.III,IV $130.00 - $139.00 - $152.00 - $164.00 DrafterI, II,III,IV $102.00 - $112.00 - $121.00 - $135.00

FIELDSURVEYING
Survey Party Chief $179.00
Instrumentman $154.00
Survey Chainman $116.00
UtilityLocator I, II,III,IV $93.00 - $132.00 — $158.00 - $180.00 ApprenticeI,II,III.IV $71.00 — $95.00 - $105.00 - $111.00

CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
Senior Consultant $234.00
Senior Construction Administrator $203.00
Resident Engineer $151.00
FieldEngineerI,II,III $137.00 - $157.00 - $179.00

ASSISTANTS
Project Assistant $84.00
EngineeringAssistant ISurveying Assistant | PlanningAssistant $82.00 Clerical| Administrative Assistant $70.00
Expertwitness rates are available upon request.

Subject to the temis of a services agreement
0 printing and reproduction services; shipping, delivery, and courier charges; subconsultant fees and expenses: agency fees; insurance:transportation on public carriers; meals and lodging; and consumable materials. o Allowablemileage willbe charged at the prevailing IRSrate per mile. 0 Monthly invoices are due within 30 days from invoice date. Interest willbe charged at 1.5% per month on past due accounts. Page 20 of 20 BKF — R19-05 Grayson and South Crane Rehab

BKF ENGIN

EERS PROFE
SSION
AL

SERVICHEDULE RATE
CES
JANUA
RY
-1, 31, 2020 DECEMBE 2020
R
Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 157 of 513 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
Consultant: BKF
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BKF; STH CONTRACT NO: 2020-086 FOR DESIGN SERVICES, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: R19-05 GRAYSON AND SOUTH CRANE AVENUE REHABILITATION FOR AN ADDITIONAL $15,000 FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $190,139.

This First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: 2020-086 dated September 17, 2020 ("Agreement") is made as of this day of , 2020 by and between the City of St. Helena, a municipal corporation ("City"), and BKF. ("Consultant").

RECITALS
A. On April 28, 2020, the City and Consultant entered into the Agreement for Consultant to provide professional services in connection with the project described as R19-05 Grayson Avenue and South Crane Avenue Rehabilitation; and
B. The Agreement’s current Scope of Services does not include the funds or the additional work needed to allow BKF to update their drawings, technical specification, and cost estimate to include the design of a new recycled water main in Grayson Avenue; and C. The additional funding is necessary to allow BKF to provide additional consulting services to the City; and

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, for good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Section 1. Basic Services
Parties agree to amend Section 1, “Basic Services” of the Agreement to provide additional services, as outlined in Exhibit A, “Scope of Work” attached hereto.

2. Section 4. Compensation, is amended to read as follows:
“Total compensation shall not exceed $190,139.00…”
Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 158 of 513 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
Consultant: BKF
All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Entered as of the day and year first above stated.

CONSULTANT:

Signatures of Authorized Persons:

By:

Print Name:

Title:

CITY OF ST. HELENA
a Municipal Corporation
By:

Print Name: Mark T. Prestwich
Title: City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
ATTEST:

City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A: “Scope of Work”
Exhibit B: “Compensation”
Jason Kirchmann Vice President
Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 159 of 513 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
Consultant: BKF
Exhibit A
"Scope of Work"
BKF have prepared the following fee and scope for the request to amend the original contract to allow BKF to update their drawings, technical specification, and cost estimate to include the design of a new recycled water main in Grayson Avenue
Design Services –
TASK 4: Utility Plan
BKF will develop utility plan sheets within the Grayson Avenue and South Crane Pavement Rehabilitation drawing set to illustrate the City-requested recycled water main improvements along Grayson Avenue. While the exact size and location of the recycled water main is not yet know, we anticipate the improvements will include the installation of approximately 2,700 feet of new 6-inch to 12-inch water main under Grayson Avenue. We understand this water main will be connected to existing recycled water infrastructure in Highway 29 and will include new services to the St. Helena High School and South Crane Park. In addition to updating the drawings with this new water line, BKF will also prepare technical specifications for the water line, and will add this additional work to the current Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Costs.

TASK 5: Caltrans Encroachment Permit Support
BKF will support the City with their Encroachment Permit application to Caltrans to allow work within the State Right of Way to install and connect the new recycled water main to the existing infrastructure in Highway 29. Anticipated support services include preparing the Encroachment Permit application form, preparing a Utility Policy Certification, and developing an abbreviated set of permit drawings showing only the work to be performed within the State Right of Way. We assume that the City will be responsible for submitting the application materials to Caltrans. This task includes budget to respond to two (2) rounds of plan review comments from Caltrans.

The estimated fee for Amendment No. 1 work is $15,000.

Original Contract
Amendment #1
$175,139
$15,000
Total $190,139
Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 160 of 513 ends

BKF ENGINEERS

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RATE SCHEDULE
JANUARY 1, 2020- DECEMBER 31, 2020

CLASSIFICATION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Principal/Vice President
Senior Associate/Vice President
Associate
Senior Project Manager I Senior Technical Manager
Project Manager I Technical Manager
Engineering Manager I Surveying Manager I Planning Manager

TECHNICAL STAFF
Senior Project Engineer I Senior Project Surveyor I Senior Project Planner Project Engineer I Project Surveyor I Project Planner
Design Engineer I Staff Surveyor I Staff Planner
BIM Specialist I, II, ill
Technician I, II, m, IV
Drafter I, II, m, IV

FIELD SURVEYING
Survey Party Chief
Instrumentman
Survey Chainman
Utility Locator I, n, m, IV
Apprentice I, II, m, IV

CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
Senior Consultant
Senior Construction Administrator
Resident Engineer
Field Engineer I, II, m

ASSISTANTS
Project Assistant
Engineering Assistant I Surveying Assistant I Planning Assistant Clerical I Administrative Assistant
Expert witness rates are available upon request
Subject to the terms of a services agreement
H0URLVRATE
$251.00
$225.00
$219.00
$214.00
$209.00
$193.00
$179.00
$157.00
$137.00
$137.00 - $157.00 - $179.00
$130.00 - $139.00 - $152.00 - $164.00
$102.00 - $112.00 - $121.00 - $135.00
$179.00
$154.00
$116.00
$93.00 - $132.00 - $158.00 - $180.00
$71.00 - $95.00 - $105.00 - $111.00
$234.00
$203.00
$151.00
$137.00 - $157.00 - $179.00
$84.00
$82.00
$70.00
• Charges for outside services, equipment. materials, and facilities not furnished directly by BKF Engineers will be billed as reimbursable expenses at cost plus 10%. Such charges may indude, but shall not be limited to:
printing and reproduction services; shipping, delivery, and courier charges; subconsultant fees and expenses; agency fees; insurance; transportation on public carriers; meals and lodging; and consumable materials.
• Allowable mileage will be charged at the prevailing IRS rate per mile. • Monthly invoices are due within 30 days from invoice date. Interest will be charged at 1.5% per month on past due accounts.

Page 4 ends

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
Consultant: BKF
Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 161 of 513 ends

Page 162 of 513 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: December 12, 2023
FROM: Joseph Leach, Public Works Director and City Engineer, Lesley Milton, Asst. to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and adoption of a Resolution accepting the tenant improvements for the City Hall campus at Napa
Valley College Campus as complete, and direct staff to
record a Notice of Completion with Napa County
Recorder's Office for Capital Improvement Project C22-01 for the Contract for Murray Builders.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends City Council adopt the attached
Resolution and direct staff to file the notice of completion.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

A. May 25, 2021 the City Council approved Resolution
2021-73 authorizing a lease for a portion of the
Napa Valley Community College District Upper
Valley Campus for space to serve as City Hall and
Police Facility;
B. June 28, 2022 Resolution No. 2022-66 awarded the
contract to Murray Builders, Inc.

C. December 7, 2022 Change Order #1 was issued for
$150,000.00 (but never executed)
D. January 10, 2023 Change Order #2 was issued for
$109,857.05
E. June 5, 2023 Change Order #3 was issued for
$228,488.06
F. August 8, 2023 Change Order #4 was issued for
$2,652.74

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To accept the improvements as complete, record the
Notice of Completion, and release the retention to the
contractor.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: CIP approved project budget was $2,531,687.51 and the total costs of the project did not exceed the final approved budget. There is no fiscal impact associated with accepting the Notice of Completion.

BACKGROUND:

It was determined that the City Hall and Police Department Facilities had exceeded their functional life. On May 25, 2021, the City Council approved Resolution 2021-73 authorizing a lease for a portion of the Napa Valley Community College District Upper Valley Campus for space to serve as City Hall and Police Facility. On August 6, 2021, a formal lease agreement between the City and the Napa Valley Community College Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 163 of 513 ends

Upper Valley Campus was executed and on January 24, 2022, the Division of State Architects officially approved the proposed plans and specifications for the Tenant improvements. On May 10, 2022, Resolution 22-36 established a Capital Improvement Program project C22-01 called the Napa Valley College Tenant Improvement Project, which was created for the necessary improvements and move facilitation. Following the City purchasing and procurement policies, contracts were executed and services were obtained from various vendors for the completion of the project.

DISCUSSION:

Pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04; Article 3 Public Works Projects; Section 3.04.220 on May 25, 2022, a notice inviting bids was posted and mailed to contractors inviting bids for Project NO. C22-0001, Napa Valley College Tenant Improvements. On June 15, 2022, four (4) bids were received and opened in accordance with applicable law. The lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the Project was Murray Building, Inc, of Sonoma, CA.

On June 28, 2022, the City engaged the services of Murray Builders for the construction of the tenant improvements for the building designed by Knoll and Tam architects in the amount of $1,167,379.00 with a contingency of 10% ($116,737.90). The Public Works Director/City Engineer authorized four (4) contract change orders during the project in the total amount of $486,150.63, one of which was never executed or expended against. The table below delineates the contract and change order costs and actual expenditures.

Contract Document Amount Authorized
Original Contract $1,167,379.00
Amendment #1 (never executed) $ 150,000.00
Amendment #2 $ 109,857.05
Amendment #3 $ 228,488.06
Amendment #4 $ 2,652.74
Contingency $ 116,737.90
Total Authorized $1,775,114.75
Total Expended $1,503,035.07
Budget Remaining
(Minus Contingency & Not executed
contract)
$ 5,341.78
The Public Works Department has inspected the work and found the work to be completed satisfactorily. Following the acceptance of the project, City staff will file a Notice of Completion concerning the project with the Napa County Recorder's Office.

No liens or claims have been filed and staff is also requesting authorization to release the retention to Murray Building, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 164 of 513 ends

On May 10, 2022, City Council approved Resolution No. 2022-36 resolving Project No.

C22-001, Napa Valley College Tenant Improvements, as Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality Act as determined by City Staff and the City Attorney.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment 2_ C19-02 Notice of Completion
2022-66 MURRAY BUILDING INC OF SONOMA BID FOR PROJECT C22-0001 NAPA

VALLEY COLLEGE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
CoSH NVC Campus CCO 2 FINAL R1 - signed
CoSH NVC Campus CCO 3 FINAL R1 - signed
CoSH NVC Campus CCO 4 - signed
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 165 of 513 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
(1) Consideration of a
Resolution accepting the work
and final project construction
costs of $1,503.035 and
directing the filing of the Notice
of Completion for Project NO.

C22-0001, Napa Valley Tenant
Improvements

RECITALS
A. On May 25, 2021 the City Council approved Resolution 2021-73 authorizing a lease for a portion of the Napa
Valley Community College District Upper Valley Campus
for space to serve as City Hall and Police Facility; and B. Pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04;
Article 3 Public Works Projects; Section 3.04.220 on May 25, 2022, a notice inviting bids was posted and mailed to contractors inviting bids for Project NO. C22-0001, Napa Valley Tenant Improvements; and
C. On June 15, 2022 four (4) bids were received and
opened in accordance with applicable law; and
D. The lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the Project was Murray Building, Inc, of Sonoma, CA in the
amount of $1,167,379.00; and
E. The Public Works Director/City Engineer authorized four (4) contract change orders during the project in the total amount of $486,150.63; and
F. The final construction contract amount is $1,503,035.07, which includes four contract change orders; and
G. The project has been inspected and Murray Building, Inc has completed the work in accordance with the contract
documents for the project; and
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 166 of 513 ends

H. If no liens or claims have been filed within 35 days of filing the Notice of Completion, the retained payment
funds, and any amount due, will be released to Murray
Building, Inc.

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

1. The contract entitled Project NO. C22-001, Napa
Valley Tenant Improvements, with the final contract
amount of $1,539,126.73, is accepted as complete,
subject to the Contractor, Murray Building, Inc,
completing the punch list work prior to the release of
the retention, and the Contractor’s continuing
warranty and other obligations pursuant to the
contract.

2. The Public Works Director/City Engineer is authorized to prepare a Notice of Completion and the City Clerk
is directed to file a Notice of Completion with the
Napa County Recorder.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City
Council on December 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 #10.7.

Page 167 of 513 ends

Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 168 of 513 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

Recording Requested By:

City of St Helena
1088 College Ave
St Helena, CA 94574
Exempt From Recording Fees Per
Government Code Sec. 27383
When Recorded Mail To:

City Clerk
City of St Helena
1088 College Ave
St Helena, CA 94574

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDERS USE ONLY

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1 The undersigned is an owner of an interest of estate in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which interest or estate is: fee simple. 2 The full name and address of the undersigned owner and of any and all co-owners are:

Name City State
Napa Valley College St Helena CA
3 Work or Improvement on the property hereinafter described as the C22-01 Napa Valley College Tenant Improvement Project Rehabilitate was completed and accepted by the City of St. Helena City Council on December 12, 2023.
4 The work done was: included design and construction of improvements in compliance with lease regulations and with approval from the property owner Napa valley College and from Department of State.
5 The name of the main contractor for the work of improvement as a whole included the following: Noll and Tam, Greystone West, Murray Building Inc, Vesta Modular, AHS Security, Economy lock, Marin IT, NorthBay Office Furniture, Waters Moving & Storage, UpValley Electric, Advanced Security Systems.
6 The real property herein referred to is situated in the City of St Helena, County of Napa, State of California, and described as follows: 1088 College Avenue.

By:

Joseph Leach, Public Works Director
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 169 of 513 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, say:

I am the person who signed the foregoing notice. I have read the above notice and know its contents, and the facts stated therein are true of my own knowledge.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.

Executed at St. Helena, California, this 12th day of December, 2023.

City of St. Helena
Joseph Leach, Public Works Director
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 170 of 513 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022- 66
1) APPROVING MURRAY BUILDING, INC, OF SONOMA CALIFORNIA, AS THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER; ( 2) AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE, ENTER INTO AND IMPLEMENT THE CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY AND MURRAY BUILDING, INC. FOR PROJECT NO. C22- 0001

NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED SIXTY- SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTYNINE DOLLARS AND 00/ 100 ($ 1, 167, 379. 00); AND ( 3) AUTHORIZING THE

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS NOT TO EXCEED 10% OF THE CONTRACT AMOUNT

RECITALS
A. It has been determined that current City Hall and Police Department facilities have exceeded their functional life, and;
B. On May 25, 2021, the City Council approved a Resolution 2021- 73 authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute a lease for a portion of the Napa Valley Community College District Upper Valley Campus for space to serve as a City Hall and Police facility, and;
C. On April 13, 2021, the City entered into a contract with Noll and Tam Architects to assist with the design of Phase I of the Napa Valley College Tenant Improvements.

D. On August 6, 2021, a formal lease agreement between the City and the Napa Valley Community College Upper Valley Campus was executed, and; E. On January 24, 2022, the Division of State Architect ( DSA) officially approved the proposed plans and specifications for the tenant improvements, and; F. On January 26, 2022, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Greystone West Company to perform construction management in the planning and bidding stage of the• project, and;
G. On May 10, 2022 City Council approved the plans and specifications for the Napa Valley College Tenant Improvement Project, Project No. C22- 0001 (" Project"), found the Project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and authorized advertisement for bids; and H. On May 25, 2022, a Notice to Contractors inviting construction bids was posted and was also published online ( i. e. City website and Blueprints Express), in the newspaper; and sent to the construction exchanges; and
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 171 of 513 ends

I. On June 15, 2022, at 2: 00 PM the City Clerk received four ( 4) sealed bids which were read aloud publicly and Murray Building, Inc. of Sonoma, California, submitted the lowest bid of$ 1, 167,379. 00; and
J. Murray Building, Inc. is the lowest responsible, responsive bid, and holds a valid Class A General Engineering and Class B General Building Contractor' s License No. 646709 in the State of California, with no enforcement actions listed. Their license expires on 10/ 3122; and
K. Subsequent review of Murray Building, Inc. bid by City staff indicates that Murray Building, Inc. is a responsible bidder and their bid was in fact responsive, therefore, be it:

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

1. On May 10, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution "[ a]pproving the plans and specifications for the Napa Valley College Tenant Improvement Project, Project No.

C22- 0001 and authorizing advertisement for bids." In addition to approving the Project, the City Council determined at its May 10, 2022 meeting that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 1 exemption set forth in State CEQA Guidelines section 15301, which applies to projects involving the minor alteration of structures and facilities. Here, the Proejct involves the minor alteration of a portion of the Napa Valley Community College District Upper Valley Campus. Specifically, the Project consists of nonstructural tenant improvements to create office space and Police Department facilities on the existing campus. Improvements will include accessibility in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (" ADA"); telecommunications upgrades; enhanced security including bulletproofing panels; a separate portable building of less than 2, 500 feet that will serve as a locker/shower room for police officers, and a generator. These non- structural tenant improvements fall squarely within the Class 1 exemption. For all these reasons, the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

2. That the City Council approves and awards the Contract by and between tlie City of St. Helena and Murray Building, Inc. for Project No C22- 0001 — Napa Valley College Tenant Improvements in the amount of One Million One Hundred Sixty- Seven Thousand Three Hundred Seventy- Nine Dollars and 00/ 100 ($ 1, 167, 379. 00), in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.;

3. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute, enter into and Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 172 of 513 ends

implement the Contract in the amount of$ 1, 167, 379. 00 with Murray Building, Inc. for Project No. C22- 0001 — Napa Valley College Tenant Improvements

4. That the City Council delegates to and authorizes the Public Works Director to approve change orders not to exceed 10% of the contract price.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on June 28, 2022, by the following vote:

Mayor Geoff Ellsworth: Yes
Vice Mayor Paul Dohring: Yes
Council Member Anna Chouteau: Yes
Council Member Lester Hardy: Yes
Council Member Eric Hall: Yes
APPROVED: ATTEST:
o
Geo Ellsw h, ayor Cindy Tz poulos, City Clerk
OT T I
Q`
atedMar h?)
Y
w- ' Y
ro 1
o° C'
i °^ated lvlay
pp CA.L1
0 Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 173 of 513 ends

1 Change Order #002 – City of St. Helena at NVC North Campus Contractor: Murray Building, Inc.
1181 Broadway
Sonoma, CA. 95476
Date: May 3, 2023
RE: City of St. Helena
NVC North Campus
CO No. 002
Description of Work: Change of Scope Items per Potential Change Order as itemized:

COR # Description of Work Amount Reference
1 Furred wall at Police Dispatch $ 6,527.40 RFI #9
2 Door Hardware Change $ (17,518.90) RFI #5.1
3 Remove and Dispose Water Softener System @
Evidence Rm. $ 321.88 Unforeseen Condition RFI #10
4 Underground Sleeving for Security System $ 1,670.44 Owner Request 6 Restroom Accessories Changes $ 905.89 RFI #11 & ASI #4 7 Bulletproofing behind existing electrical boxes $ 869.76 Owner Request 8 Remove Furred Wall at DF and Adjust electrical $ 1,003.37 Unforeseen Condition RFI #24 10 Dispose of Owner Items $ 1,509.97 Owner Request

11.1 Extra Bulletproofing Panels - 15 sheets $ 12,262.60 Owner Request 12 Modular Utility Changes $ 6,902.00 RFI #35 & #37 Modular Changes
13 Manhole Credit $ (6,500.06) Owner Request
15 Remove Elec. Floor Boxes $ 2,348.55 RFI #32
16 Fence Layout Change due to Modular Building
Re-Orientation $ 12,448.70 Owner Request RFI #23

18.1 Wall Surface Repairs for Paint $ 11,596.86
Unforeseen Condition
(scarring, water damage)
RFI #38
19 Added Paving at EV Parking $ 6,500.65 RFI #52.1
22 Relocate Toilet Carrier in Women’s RR $ 11,040.07 Unforeseen Condition RFI #34 23 Added Paving Prep $ 7,970.74 Owner Request

24.1 Floor Prep and Changes $ 4,719.19 Existing Cond
26 Credit Shelving at Evidence Locker $ (2,446.66) CCD #4 29 Floor Corrections Rm 3A $ 759.16 Exist Cond
30 Light Enclosures $ 2,348.55 ASI #8
31 Grounding - IT Equip at Rm 3B $ 2,944.47 Owner Request ASI #6 32 HVAC Unit Added Wiring $ 2,706.14 RFI #53
33 Miscellaneous Electrical $ 4,670.12 Owner Request, RFI, Unforeseen Condition

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 174 of 513 ends

2 COR # Description of Work Amount Reference
34 Sprinkler Head Changes - Unequal Heads $ 6,357.82 RFI #56.1 35 Door and Trim - Finish/Re-Finish $ 10,977.78 Owner Request

39.1 Temporary Doors $ 8,097.83 Owner Request
40 Admin Ceiling Leak Repairs $ 1,304.65 Owner Request
COR # Description of Work Amount Reference
42 Repair Existing Urinal $ 259.24 Unforeseen Condition RFI #59

45.1 Ceiling Tile Replace $ 2,125.53 Owner Request
46 Concrete Short Load - Remob $ 2,115.51 Unforeseen Condition 1/27/2023
47 Sealants at exterior doors of 6G and 6F per ASI

11.1 $ 1,166.47 Unforeseen Condition, Owner Request ASI #11.1

48.1 Admin Hall Ceiling Leak repair $ 3,536.24 Owner Request 50 Credit for Not Painting North Wall - 1/A3.11
Exterior Elevation $ (1,644.91) Owner Request
Total Contract Change Order #2 $ 109,857.05
Time Impact: 0 Days
Architect Date
Noll and Tam Architects
Construction Manager Date
Greystone West
Contractor / Developer Date
Scott Murray, Murray Building
City of St. Helena Date
When signed, the City of St. Helena authorizes Developer to proceed with the work described above. Additionally, the Developer is authorized to charge all associated costs described herein to the Owner Contingency. Time impacts, if any, will be included in a revision to the Lease Agreement.

The undersigned Developer approves the foregoing as to the changes, if any, and to the Guaranteed Maximum Price specified for each item and as to the extension of time allowed, if any, for completion of the entire Work as stated herein, and agrees to furnish all labor, materials and service, and perform all work necessary to complete any additional work specified for the consideration stated herein. Submission of sums which have no basis in fact or which the Developer knows are false are at the sole risk of Developer and may be in violation of the False Claims Act set forth under Government Code section 12650 et seq. and U.S. Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. It is understood that the changes herein to the Contract Documents shall only be effective when approved by the governing board of the District.

It is expressly understood that the value of the extra Work or changes expressly includes any and all of the Developer's costs and expenses, both direct and indirect, resulting from additional time required on the Project or resulting from delay to the Project. Developer is not entitled to separately recover amounts for overhead or other indirect costs. Any costs, expenses, damages, or time extensions not included are deemed waived.

Original Construction Contract $1,167,389.00
Total CCO #002: $ 109,857.05
Revised Contract Amount $ 1,277,246.05
John Dilena (Jun 5, 2023 16:41 PDT)
Jun 5, 2023
Phan Dung (Jun 6, 2023 08:53 PDT)
Phan Dung Jun 6, 2023 Scott Murray (Jun 19, 2023 10:40 PDT) Scott Murray Jun 19, 2023
Joseph Leach (Jun 19, 2023 10:45 PDT)
Jun 19, 2023
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 175 of 513 ends

3 Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 176 of 513 ends

CoSH NVC Campus CCO 2 FINAL R1
Final Audit Report 2023-06-19
Created: 2023-05-31
By: Kristi Janowski ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA1s106HKMPiUp8wGsDlXeDe0XJFietzqn "CoSH NVC Campus CCO 2 FINAL R1" History
Document created by Kristi Janowski ([email protected]) 2023-05-31 - 6:17:31 PM GMT
Document emailed to John Dilena ([email protected]) for signature 2023-05-31 - 6:19:17 PM GMT
Email viewed by John Dilena ([email protected])
2023-06-05 - 11:41:42 PM GMT
Document e-signed by John Dilena ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-06-05 - 11:41:53 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2023-06-05 - 11:41:55 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2023-06-06 - 3:51:14 PM GMT
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Phan Dung 2023-06-06 - 3:53:06 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Phan Dung ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-06-06 - 3:53:08 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2023-06-06 - 3:53:10 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2023-06-06 - 9:36:16 PM GMT
New document URL requested by [email protected] 2023-06-19 - 5:39:35 PM GMT
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 177 of 513 ends

Email viewed by [email protected]
2023-06-19 - 5:40:12 PM GMT
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Scott Murray 2023-06-19 - 5:40:40 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Scott Murray ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-06-19 - 5:40:42 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Joseph Leach ([email protected]) for signature 2023-06-19 - 5:40:43 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Joseph Leach ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-06-19 - 5:45:05 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed.
2023-06-19 - 5:45:05 PM GMT
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 178 of 513 ends

Change Order #3 – City of St Helena at NVC North Campus 1 Change Order #003 – City of St. Helena at NVC North Campus Contractor: Murray Building, Inc.
1181 Broadway
Sonoma, CA. 95476
Date: May 3, 2023
RE: City of St. Helena
NVC North Campus
CO No. 003
Description of Work: Change of Scope Items per Potential Change Order as itemized:

COR # Description of Work Amount Reference

25.1 Office Changes $ 123,844.12 Owner Request CCD 4

14.1 Repair Electrical at Restroom $ 19,756.50 Owner Request RFI #26 36 Gutters $ 33,432.56 Owner Request
36A Gutter/Leak exploration $ 1,275.66 Owner Request
37 Main Line Fire Sprinkler Repairs - 4" $ 10,955.83 Exist Condition 38 Replace Recalled Fire Sprinklers $ 37,646.80 Owner Request 38A Exploratory work for replacing all existing sprinkler heads $ 637.83 Owner Request 41 Tree Irrigation Cap $ 898.76 Owner Request
Total CCO #3 $228,448.06
Time Impact: 0 Days
Architect Date
Noll and Tam Architects
Construction Manager Date
Greystone West
Contractor / Developer Date
Scott Murray, Murray Building
City of St. Helena Date
When signed, the City of St. Helena authorizes Developer to proceed with the work described above. Additionally, the Developer is authorized to charge all associated costs described herein to the Owner Contingency. Time impacts, if any, will be included in a revision to the Lease Agreement.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Original Construction Contract $1,167,389.00
Total CCO #002: $ 109,857.05
Total CCO #003: $ 228,488.06
Revised Contract Amount $1,506,044.11
John Dilena (Jun 5, 2023 16:42 PDT)
Jun 5, 2023
Phan Dung (Jun 6, 2023 08:53 PDT)
Phan Dung Jun 6, 2023
Scott Murray (Jun 19, 2023 10:41 PDT)
Scott Murray Jun 19, 2023
Joseph Leach (Jun 19, 2023 10:45 PDT)
Jun 19, 2023
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 179 of 513 ends

Change Order #3 – City of St Helena at NVC North Campus 2 Code section 12650 et seq. and U.S. Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. It is understood that the changes herein to the Contract Documents shall only be effective when approved by the governing board of the District.

Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 180 of 513 ends

CoSH NVC Campus CCO 3 FINAL R1
Final Audit Report 2023-06-19
Created: 2023-05-31
By: Kristi Janowski ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAApfysznicJKrEFMXincnmNmXCc4IsVtfu "CoSH NVC Campus CCO 3 FINAL R1" History
Document created by Kristi Janowski ([email protected]) 2023-05-31 - 6:21:41 PM GMT
Document emailed to John Dilena ([email protected]) for signature 2023-05-31 - 6:22:13 PM GMT
Email viewed by John Dilena ([email protected])
2023-06-05 - 11:42:01 PM GMT
Document e-signed by John Dilena ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-06-05 - 11:42:11 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2023-06-05 - 11:42:13 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2023-06-06 - 3:53:21 PM GMT
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Phan Dung 2023-06-06 - 3:53:43 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Phan Dung ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-06-06 - 3:53:45 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2023-06-06 - 3:53:46 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2023-06-09 - 0:46:45 AM GMT
New document URL requested by [email protected] 2023-06-19 - 5:39:47 PM GMT
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 181 of 513 ends

Email viewed by [email protected]
2023-06-19 - 5:40:51 PM GMT
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Scott Murray 2023-06-19 - 5:41:07 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Scott Murray ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-06-19 - 5:41:09 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Joseph Leach ([email protected]) for signature 2023-06-19 - 5:41:10 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Joseph Leach ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-06-19 - 5:45:52 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed.
2023-06-19 - 5:45:52 PM GMT
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 182 of 513 ends

August 9, 2023
City of St Helena
City Council
1088 College Ave
St Helena, CA. 94574
RE: Change Order #4 – Murray Building, Inc.

City of St Helena at Napa Valley College Campus
Item #1 – Split Cost of Final Dumpster for City’s Use – COR #51 This change is the result of an owner request. A negotiated agreement between Murray Building,Inc., and the City of St Helena to share the costs of the final dumpster load, allowing the City of St Helena the ability to remove and dispose of unwanted furniture and miscellaneous in the building prior to the City’s occupancy. The total cost for Item #01 includes the added costs associated with the labor and equipment. $818.27 Item #2 – Paint Touch Up Due to Water Damage – COR #52
This change is the result of a design change. Several interior wall areas which weren’t included in the scope of the construction project had suffered water damage and were bubbled and discolored. This COR is for the patching and painting of these areas prior to the City taking occupancy of the building. $1,834.47 In our capacity as the District’s Construction Manager, we have completed a review of Change Order #4.

Change Order #4 amounts to $2,652.74.

Based upon the review of the merit and compensation, it is our recommendation that this change order be approved. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,
John Dilena
John Dilena
Greystone West Company
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 183 of 513 ends

Change Order #4 – City of St Helena at NVC North Campus 1 Change Order #004 – City of St. Helena at NVC North Campus Contractor: Murray Building, Inc.
1181 Broadway
Sonoma, CA. 95476
Date: August 8, 2023
RE: City of St. Helena
NVC North Campus
CO No. 004
Description of Work: Change of Scope Items per Potential Change Order as itemized:

COR # Description of Work Amount Reference
51 Split cost of final dumpster for City’s use 818.27
52 Owner requested paint touch up due to water damage 1,834.47 Total CCO #3 $ 2,652.74
Time Impact: 0 Days
Architect Date
Noll and Tam Architects
Construction Manager Date
Greystone West
Contractor / Developer Date
Scott Murray, Murray Building
City of St. Helena Date
When signed, the City of St. Helena authorizes Developer to proceed with the work described above. Additionally, the Developer is authorized to charge all associated costs described herein to the Owner Contingency. Time impacts, if any, will be included in a revision to the Lease Agreement.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Original Construction Contract $1,167,389.00
Total CCO #002: $ 109,857.05
Total CCO #003: $ 228,488.06
Total CCO #004 $ 2,652.74
Revised Contract Amount $1,508,696.85
Scott Murray (Aug 11, 2023 11:49 PDT)
Aug 11, 2023
John Dilena (Aug 16, 2023 14:55 PDT)
Aug 16, 2023
Phan Dung (Aug 16, 2023 15:09 PDT)
Phan Dung Aug 16, 2023
Joseph Leach (Aug 22, 2023 09:18 PDT)
Aug 22, 2023
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 184 of 513 ends

Distribution to:

OWNER

ARCHITECT

CONTRACTOR
INSPECTOR 51
TITLE: Dumpster For Owner Items
PROJECT: ARCHITECT: C. O. R. No. 51
NVC UVC T.I. Noll & Tam Date: 6/8/2023
1088 College Avenue 729 Heinz Avenue Arch. Project No.

Berkeley, Ca 94710 Contract For:

Fax: Contract Date: 7.25.22
DSA File No.

OWNER: INSPECTOR OF RECORD: DSA App. No. 01-119725
Napa Valley CCD OPSC App. No.
2277 Napa Vallejo Hwy Response to:

Arch. RFP No. Own. Req.

Fax: Fax:

DESCRIPTION:

MODIFICATION TO
CONTRACT SUM: MODIFICATION TO
(Line 22 from Page 2) CONTRACT TIME:

Supporting schedule information attached
CONTRACTORS CERTIFICATION AND WAIVER OF CLAIMS:
94574
Napa , Ca 94558
$818.27
"The undersigned Contractor approves the foregoing as to the changes in work, if any, and as to the contract price specified for each item and as to the extension of time allowed, if any, for completion of the project as stated herein, and agrees to furnish all labor, materials, and service and to perform all work necessary to complete any additional work specified for the consideration stated herein. Submission of claims which have no basis in fact or which Contractor knows are false are made at the sole risk of the Contractor and may be a violation of the False Claims Act, as set forth in Government Code Sections 12650 et seq. It is understood that the changes to the Contract Documents set forth herein shall only be effective upon approval by the governing board of the District." "It is expressly understood that the value of the extra work or changes expressly includes any and all of the Contractor's costs and expenses, both direct and indirect, resulting from additional time required on the project or resulting from delay to the project. Any costs, expenses, damages, or time extensions not included herein are deemed waived."
CHANGE
ORDER

REQUEST
COR
COR for the 1/2 the cost of the final dumpster that was used by Owner to dispose of non-wanted items in building as per agreement.

Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 185 of 513 ends

CONTRACTOR
Architect's Action
REJECT - Received Too Late.

Fax: REJECT - Inadequate Back-Up.

By. Scott Murray REJECT - Not in Proper Form.

Date 6/8/2023 Review and Comment Only
SUMMARY OF ATTACHMENTS TO: C.O. R. No.: 51
PROJECT: Project No.:

NVC UVC T.I. Date: 6/8/2023
1088 College Avenue DSA App. No.: 01-119725

Page 2 ends

of 3
Line TITLE: Dumpster For Owner Items ADDED CREDIT
ALL LINES SHALL BE FILLED IN, (zero values acceptable).

GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S WORK
1 Material (attach itemized quantity and unit cost excluding sales tax) $697.59 $0.00 2 Labor (attach itemized hours and rates) $0.00 $0.00
3 Equipment (attach invoices) $0.00 $0.00
4 Subtotal $697.59 $0.00
5 General Contractor's Overhead and Profit,
not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of lines 1 & 4. $104.64 $0.00 6 Subtotal $802.23 $0.00
7 Liability and Property Damage Insurance, Worker's
Compensation Insurance, Social Security, and
Unemployment Taxes, not to exceed thirty-five percent
(35%) of line 2. $0.00
8 Subtotal General Contractor Work (sum of lines 6 and 7.) $802.23 $0.00 SUBCONTRACT WORK (Provide separate breakdown for each subcontract)* 9 Material (attach itemized quantity and unit cost excluding sales tax) $0.00 $0.00 10 Labor (attach itemized hours and rates) $0.00 $0.00
11 Vendor (attach invoices) $0.00 $0.00
12 Subtotal $0.00 $0.00
13 Subcontractor's overhead and profit on work performed by Sub-contractor, not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of line 12. Incl. $0.00 14 Subtotal $0.00 $0.00
15 General Contractor's Overhead and Profit on subcontract work, not to exceed ten percent (10%) of line 14. $0.00 $0.00 16 Liability and Property Damage Insurance, Worker's
Compensation Insurance, Social Security, and Unemployment Taxes, not to exceed thirty-five percent (35%) of line 10. $0.00 $0.00 waived."
"Any alteration or revision of this Document, it's terms, or this Certification is deemed a waiver of any costs, expenses, damages, or time extensions included herein."
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 186 of 513 ends

17 Total of Subcontract Work (sum of lines 14, 15 and 16) $0.00 $0.00 18 Subtotal General Contractor and Subcontractor Work
(sum of lines 8 and 17.) $802.23 $0.00
19 Applicable Taxes (itemized by levy and by contract) $0.00 $0.00 20 Subtotal (sum of lines 18 and 19) $802.23 $0.00
21 Bond not to exceed one and one half percent (1 1/2%) of line 20. $16.04 $0.00 22 TOTAL (sum of lines 20 and 21.) Copy to cover page. $818.27 $0.00 * Attach additional copies of this page as required to summarize additional subcontracts.

Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 187 of 513 ends

Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 188 of 513 ends

Distribution to:

OWNER

ARCHITECT

CONTRACTOR
INSPECTOR 52
TITLE: Owner Requested Paint Touch Up
PROJECT: ARCHITECT: C. O. R. No. 52
NVC UVC T.I. Noll & Tam Date: 7/25/2023
1088 College Avenue 729 Heinz Avenue Arch. Project No.

Berkeley, Ca 94710 Contract For:

Fax: Contract Date: 7.25.22
DSA File No.

OWNER: INSPECTOR OF RECORD: DSA App. No. 01-119725
Napa Valley CCD OPSC App. No.
2277 Napa Vallejo Hwy Response to:

Arch. RFP No. Own. Req.

Fax: Fax:

DESCRIPTION:

MODIFICATION TO
CONTRACT SUM: MODIFICATION TO
(Line 22 from Page 2) CONTRACT TIME:

Supporting schedule information attached
CONTRACTORS CERTIFICATION AND WAIVER OF CLAIMS:
94574
Napa , Ca 94558
$1,834.47
"The undersigned Contractor approves the foregoing as to the changes in work, if any, and as to the contract price specified for each item and as to the extension of time allowed, if any, for completion of the project as stated herein, and agrees to furnish all labor, materials, and service and to perform all work necessary to complete any additional work specified for the consideration stated herein. Submission of claims which have no basis in fact or which Contractor knows are false are made at the sole risk of the Contractor and may be a violation of the False Claims Act, as set forth in Government Code Sections 12650 et seq. It is understood that the changes to the Contract Documents set forth herein shall only be effective upon approval by the governing board of the District." "It is expressly understood that the value of the extra work or changes expressly includes any and all of the Contractor's costs and expenses, both direct and indirect, resulting from additional time required on the project or resulting from delay to the project. Any costs, expenses, damages, or time extensions not included herein are deemed waived."
CHANGE
ORDER

REQUEST
COR
COR for additional painting, outside of contract scope, that was requested by Owner during punch list phase.

Painting was of water damaged area in South Hallway.

Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 189 of 513 ends

CONTRACTOR
Architect's Action
REJECT - Received Too Late.

Fax: REJECT - Inadequate Back-Up.

By. Scott Murray REJECT - Not in Proper Form.

Date 7/25/2023 Review and Comment Only
SUMMARY OF ATTACHMENTS TO: C.O. R. No.: 52
PROJECT: Project No.:

NVC UVC T.I. Date: 7/25/2023
1088 College Avenue DSA App. No.: 01-119725

Page 2 ends

of 3
Line TITLE: Owner Requested Paint Touch Up ADDED CREDIT ALL LINES SHALL BE FILLED IN, (zero values acceptable).

GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S WORK
1 Material (attach itemized quantity and unit cost excluding sales tax) $0.00 $0.00 2 Labor (attach itemized hours and rates) $0.00 $0.00
3 Equipment (attach invoices) $0.00 $0.00
4 Subtotal $0.00 $0.00
5 General Contractor's Overhead and Profit,
not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of lines 1 & 4. $0.00 $0.00 6 Subtotal $0.00 $0.00
7 Liability and Property Damage Insurance, Worker's
Compensation Insurance, Social Security, and
Unemployment Taxes, not to exceed thirty-five percent
(35%) of line 2. $0.00
8 Subtotal General Contractor Work (sum of lines 6 and 7.) $0.00 $0.00 SUBCONTRACT WORK (Provide separate breakdown for each subcontract)* 9 Material (attach itemized quantity and unit cost excluding sales tax) $0.00 $0.00 10 Labor (attach itemized hours and rates) $0.00 $0.00
11 Vendor (attach invoices) $1,635.00 $0.00
12 Subtotal $1,635.00 $0.00
13 Subcontractor's overhead and profit on work performed by Sub-contractor, not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of line 12. Incl. $0.00 14 Subtotal $1,635.00 $0.00
15 General Contractor's Overhead and Profit on subcontract work, not to exceed ten percent (10%) of line 14. $163.50 $0.00 16 Liability and Property Damage Insurance, Worker's
Compensation Insurance, Social Security, and Unemployment Taxes, not to exceed thirty-five percent (35%) of line 10. $0.00 $0.00 waived."
"Any alteration or revision of this Document, it's terms, or this Certification is deemed a waiver of any costs, expenses, damages, or time extensions included herein."
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 190 of 513 ends

17 Total of Subcontract Work (sum of lines 14, 15 and 16) $1,798.50 $0.00 18 Subtotal General Contractor and Subcontractor Work
(sum of lines 8 and 17.) $1,798.50 $0.00
19 Applicable Taxes (itemized by levy and by contract) $0.00 $0.00 20 Subtotal (sum of lines 18 and 19) $1,798.50 $0.00
21 Bond not to exceed one and one half percent (1 1/2%) of line 20. $35.97 $0.00 22 TOTAL (sum of lines 20 and 21.) Copy to cover page. $1,834.47 $0.00 * Attach additional copies of this page as required to summarize additional subcontracts.

Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 191 of 513 ends

Quote # 004
PCO #
Date Issued 2/10/2023
KBI Job # 22-112
GC Job #
Submitted To Submitted By
GC:

PM:

PE:

SUPER:

Subject
Amount
PROJECT: NVC Upper Valley Campus
KBI Painting Inc.

Jim Koreen
President / Estimator
(707) 753-0933
Scott Murray
Murray Building, Inc
Item #
$985.00
2 Paint water damaged area only
**Alternate Add - Finish wall & ceiling corner to corner** $985.00
We will proceed with this pricing change request upon written approval via email or receipt of change order to contract.

TOTAL $650.00
NVC Wall Repair
1 $650.00
TOTAL

DESCRIPTION OF WORK
KBI Painting Quote Sheet
1310 Ross Street Suite A, Petaluma CA 94954 - office (707) 795-4955 - fax (707) 777-5413 Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 192 of 513 ends

Murray CCO 4
Final Audit Report 2023-08-22
Created: 2023-08-11
By: Kristi Janowski ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAArNgUqBj7RvwJHRah9HbjObW0QKxmm5pg "Murray CCO 4" History
Document created by Kristi Janowski ([email protected]) 2023-08-11 - 3:10:16 PM GMT
Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2023-08-11 - 3:12:46 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2023-08-11 - 6:48:22 PM GMT
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Scott Murray 2023-08-11 - 6:49:30 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Scott Murray ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-08-11 - 6:49:32 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to John Dilena ([email protected]) for signature 2023-08-11 - 6:49:34 PM GMT
Email viewed by John Dilena ([email protected])
2023-08-16 - 9:55:17 PM GMT
Document e-signed by John Dilena ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-08-16 - 9:55:39 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2023-08-16 - 9:55:40 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2023-08-16 - 10:08:45 PM GMT
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Phan Dung 2023-08-16 - 10:09:45 PM GMT
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 193 of 513 ends

Document e-signed by Phan Dung ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-08-16 - 10:09:47 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Joseph Leach ([email protected]) for signature 2023-08-16 - 10:09:48 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Joseph Leach ([email protected]) E-signature obtained using URL retrieved through the Adobe Acrobat Sign API Signature Date: 2023-08-22 - 4:18:54 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed.
2023-08-22 - 4:18:54 PM GMT
Agenda Item #10.7.

Page 194 of 513 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Department: Public Works
DATE: December 12, 2023
FROM: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and proposed approval of a Resolution approving the annexation of the property known as 1516
Sulphur Springs Avenue, St Helena, CA (APN 009-362-018), into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 146.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution
approving the annexation of the territories into the St Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1 MSD.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

City Council approved Resolution 2023-00 on October 10, 2023, requesting to set a public hearing for December 12, 2023, to consider objections to the proposed annexation as required by state law.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Commence a public hearing to consider objections to the proposed annexation into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1. Consideration and approval a Resolution approving the proposed annexation if the proposed
annexation are found to be beneficial for the properties.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:

Any property that wishes to connect and utilize the sanitary sewer system in the City of St. Helena must be annexed into the Municipal Sewer District No. 1. All applications for annexations shall be approved by the City Council pursuant to the requirements of state law (SHMC § 13.20.040). State law details the requirements in Health and Safety Code Section 4600. City Council approval of the annexation is the formal administrative process to change the property’s tax rate area code from septic to sanitary sewer. The process for a property to be annexed requires that a resolution be adopted ordering a public hearing by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the members of the City Council (HSC § 4643). The resolution is required to contain the following information and finding:
(a) Describe the boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed. (b) Designate the proposed annexation by an appropriate number. (c) Declare that the area to be annexed to the district will be benefited by such annexation.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 195 of 513 ends

(d) Name the time and place for the hearing of objections by any person interested in the proposed annexation, to the inclusion in the district of any land described in the resolution.

Once adopted, the resolution, together with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against it, must be published for two successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation and published in the City. The first publication shall not be more than 60 days nor less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing.

At the time established for the public hearing, the City Council will hear and consider any objections to the annexation and exclude any territory which in the Council’s opinion will not be benefited by the annexation. After making changes to the boundaries of the area to be annexed, if any, the City Council may then adopt a resolution approving the annexation of the Property into the District which will require at least four affirmative votes. Upon a determination by the Council that the Property will be benefited by the annexation; certified copies of the resolution will then be recorded and filed in the manner and with the same force and effect (HSC § 4613). Upon recordation of the resolution, the Property annexed becomes a part of the District and is subject to all the liabilities and entitled to all the benefits of the District.

If the City Council approves the resolution following the public hearing on December 12, 2023, City staff will then process the annexation with Napa County and the State Board of Equalization to change the tax rate area code for the property. Staff will work with the applicant to collect outstanding fees and obtain required permits.

DISCUSSION:

The public hearing notices to consider objections to the proposed annexation for December 12, 2023, were first published on November 1, 2023, and the second on November 8, 2023. Additionally, notices of the public hearing and the Resolution were distributed within the area to be annexed not earlier than the 60th day or later than the 30th day prior to the hearing.

At the time established for the hearing, City Council will hear and consider any objections to the annexation and exclude any territory which in the Council’s opinion will not be benefited by the annexation. After making changes to the boundaries of the area to be annexed, if any, the City Council may then adopt a Resolution approving the annexation of the property into the District, which requires at least four affirmative votes.

Upon a determination by the Council that the property will be benefited by the annexation, certified copies of the Resolution will then be recorded (HSC § 4613). Upon recordation of the Resolution the property annexed becomes a part of the District and is subject to all the liabilities and entitled to all the benefits of the District (HSC § 4648).

City Council is requested to consider the annexation from the following parties into the District:

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 196 of 513 ends

The property known as 1516 Sulphur Springs Avenue, St Helena, CA (APN 009-362- 018), into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 146.

Location maps and descriptions for the properties are attached. Staff request City Council to consider the applicant's annexation request and consider a Resolution approving the annexation. If the City Council approves the Resolution following the hearing, City staff will then process the annexation with Napa County and the State Board of Equalization to change the tax rate area code for the property. Properties will then become eligible to connect to the City's sanitary sewer system.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Properties that are annexed into the District and connect to the sanitary sewer system will be required to abandon existing septic systems in accordance with Napa County Environmental Health Services.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution - 1516 Sulphur Springs Ave
Location Map - 1516 Sulphur Springs Ave
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 197 of 513 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Helena to approve the annexation of the property known
as 1516 Sulphur Springs Avenue, St Helena, CA (APN
009-362-018) into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 146.

RECITALS
A. The property known as 1516 Sulphur Springs Avenue, St Helena, CA (APN 009- 362-018) will benefit from annexation into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1 (“District”), MSD Annexation No. 146; and
B. A public hearing regarding this proposed annexation was ordered on October 10th, 2023, and duly noticed and held on December 12th 2023, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of St. Helena; and
C. All annexation fees have been paid; and
D. The City has complied with all laws applicable to these annexation proceedings, including without limitation Health & Safety Code Sections 4641.

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

1. The territory described in the attached Exhibit A, commonly known as 1516 Sulphur Springs Avenue, St Helena, CA (APN 009-362-018) is hereby ordered annexed; and

2. The City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be recorded with the official records of the County of Napa, pursuant to section 4647 of the Health & Safety Code.

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

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Hall: __________
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 198 of 513 ends

Councilmember Chouteau: __________
Councilmember Hardy: __________
Councilmember Summers: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 199 of 513 ends

Exhibit “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR SEWER A
N
N
E
X
A
TI
O
N
Being the Lands of 1516 Sulphur Springs LLC, a Califor
nia
Liability Li Company as
m
ite
d
described in Deed Document no. 2022-0001242,Napa County which is: of arecital COMMENCINGat a point on the Northwestemline of Sulph
ur
Sthereon distant Avenue,
p
ri
n
g
s
South 46° 54‘West 1219.94 feet from the monument, markin g
inter twithhe treof
hsecti
eon
monumental centerline of Main Street; running thence along 46° 54' said West Northwestern line 80 feet; thence North 40° 46'West 201 .78 then North East 54' 8046° ce feet; thence South 40° 46' East 201.78 feet to the point of com menc
ement
. /
JACKSO
NAND
ASSOCI
A
EST

LAND SURV
EYOR
S
Jack
son &Assoc POBox Ca 95425 89-8494 (707) 737. Cloverdale.lales email pete@; acksonIandsurvays. com
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 200 of 513 ends

LEGEND

SUBJECT PARCEL

ADJOINERPARCEL

APN ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER

WAGNER RANCH LLC
APN 009-362-027
N46‘54'EBO.00'
151 6 SULPHUR

SPRINGS LLC
2022-0001242
N40'4s w 201.78’ $40'46‘E 201.78’

H OPPE/SRINI VAS
APN 009-362-019 APN 009-362-018
o 25 so
1' = 50'
s45'54'w ao.oo'

POINT OF COMMENCEMENT

SULPHUR SPRINGS AVENUE
SEWERANNEXATION TO THEcm or sr HELENA JACKSON 1516 suugu:
spamcs AVE. ELENA omnm E. AND JACKSON ASSOCIATESLANDSOF 1516 SULPHUR SPRINGS.LLC ‘ v ‘, LAND SURVEYORS PO BOX 787 -' « cnovanmuz. cA ma DARRINE. J soN PLS 7251 ‘"7’
°°“‘“°‘
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 201 of 513 ends

Page 202 of 513 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Planning
DATE: December 12, 2023
FROM: Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Antonio and Rita Castellucci have submitted a PreApplication Review for a proposed a mixed-use commercial project that includes 75 hotel rooms, 10
residential units, a restaurant and bar, retail space, a café, a spa, a fitness center, a conference center and
underground parking at the former Bank of America
location at 1001 Adams Street in the Business,
Professional and Office (BPO) zoning district.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive the
applicant’s presentation and provide the applicant
feedback on the concept plan including but not limited to:

1. Request for a General Plan Amendment and Zoning
Map Amendment to Central Business District to
accommodate the mixed use project at the
proposed location;

2. Potential issues or concerns about the concept;

3. Preference on if the bar/restaurant component
should be active ground floor use that engages the
street versus upper floor; and

4. Points of emphasis to address with the formal
application and Development Agreement.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

There are no previous actions related to this item.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The purpose of a Pre-Application Review is for the City and other interested parties to provide preliminary
feedback on the proposed concept that includes a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment. The feedback
can be used to fine-tune the proposal before formal
applications are submitted to the City.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact results from the Pre-Application Review and the applicant would be required to enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for costs
associated with processing formal applications. A new
hotel could provide the City with tax revenue and
employment opportunities in the future.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 203 of 513 ends

BACKGROUND:

The 1.1-acre property located at 1001 Adams Street is located on the south side of Adams Street, one block east from its intersection with Main Street in the City’s Business Professional and Office (BPO) zoning district. The site is currently developed with a parking lot, an 11,116 square foot commercial office building that is currently vacant (the former location of Bank of America) except that an outdoor ATM is still operational. The property is bordered by commercial zoning districts on all sides; however, residential land uses are located one property over to the south.

The site was a subject of study as part of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) report submitted to the City in June 2023 (attached, see report page 32). The TAP report recommended this site be viewed as an opportunity site for a boutique hotel given its proximity to the downtown and conclusion that the market can support far more hotel rooms which in turn would boost transient occupancy tax (TOT) and help fund important resident quality of life investments such as park maintenance, DISCUSSION:

The purpose of a Pre-Application Review is for the City and other interested parties to provide preliminary feedback on the proposed concept that can be used to fine-tune the proposal before formal applications are submitted to the City. The applicant’s concept is to demolish the existing commercial structure, change the General Plan land use and zoning designations from Business, Professional and Office (BPO) to Central Business (CB) in order to allow for the construction of a mixed-use commercial building that includes hotel rooms, residential units, bar and restaurant, conference center, spa, fitness/wellness center, retail uses and basement parking. The project would include a total conditioned square footage of approximately 69,063 sf resulting in a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.4, less than the maximum permitted FAR of 2.0. Proposed square footage includes the following:
 Hotel: 74 guestrooms and 1 presidential suite for a total of 75 hotel rooms that account for 38,754 sf.
 Residential: 14,946 sf for residential (consisting of 10 residences). The average residence area is roughly 1,500 sf. Eight of the residences are 1650-1700 sf, with two small residences at 886 sf.
 Commercial Uses:
- 3,386 sf restaurant & bar open to the public.
- 746 sf retail store open to the public, located in front of the hotel. - 746 sf café & lounge open to the public.
- 2,000 sf spa and wellness facility open to the public. - 875 sf fitness center open to the public.
- 2,539 sf conference center to accommodate an occupancy of up to 170 people, this will allow for outside users to rent it.
 Accessory Uses: 5,071 sf.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 204 of 513 ends

The anticipated entitlements necessary for the project as currently planned include:
 General Plan map amendment to Central Business (from Office)  Zoning map amendment to Central Business District (from Business Professional Office)
 Conditional Use Permit
 Variance
 Development Agreement
 CEQA clearance
Please refer to the attached concept plans which includes mapping of the General Plan and Zoning for context.

Variance Requests
As currently designed, the applicant would be requesting the following two variances:

1. To allow a total height of 53’ (7’ over the maximum permitted) to accommodate two story residences; and

2. To allow for greater setbacks on Adams Street than permitted (14’ opposed to 8’ maximum) in order to accommodate additional landscaping.

Note the proposal to have the building footprint setback from the street and also the proposal to have the bar/restaurant on the upper floor is not consistent with the ULI report (report page 32) :
" Hotels located downtown bring overnight guests who would directly improve the vitality after 5 p.m. The issue of lack of evening activity was raised time and again during stakeholder interviews. The hotels should include active ground-floor uses, such as bars and/or dining, that engage the street and have the potential to become places for local residents as much as for tourists."
It is also important to note that the ULI report is not an officially adopted or regulatory document so the City has flexibility on how new development occurs in the areas discussed in the report, not withstanding compliance with the zoning code.

Parking
In addition to the variances noted above, the applicant is requesting the Community Development Director support a 40% parking reduction to accommodate for the shared uses (permitted pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.26.060).

The Project is providing 97 parking spaces all underground. The applicant states that there can be additional tandem parking because it is all provided by valet. The St.

SHMC requires the following on-site parking:
 Hotel: Minimum 1 space per guest room, suite, sleeping or living unit plus one space for each three employees.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 205 of 513 ends

 Commercial, retail and office: 1 space per 300 sf of building floor area, in no cases less than 2 parking spaces for each building or tenant space.  Multi-Family Residential: 1 space for studio and 1-bedroom units and 1.5 spaces for 2-bedroom units.

Based on the numbers presented above, the applicant estimates that 176 parking spaces would be required.

Affordable Housing
The applicant has proposed placing affordable housing on an 8,712 sf parcel located on Mitchell Avenue two blocks west of Main Street which is owned by the Castellucci's. The property in question is zoned High Density Residential with a permitted density range of

16.1-28 units per acre (3 to 6 units on the referenced property). The affordable housing requirements will be negotiated as part of the future Development Agreement approved by the City Council concurrent with the other project entitlements.

Development Agreement
In addition to the entitlements that would be required, the applicant is willing and interested to negotiate the terms of a development agreement to outline community benefits, infrastructure improvements, water neutrality and affordable housing requirements. Once the applicant receives feedback from the Council, the project description will be further refined to accompany detailed applications. In addition, the environmental review process pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will begin and will be completed as part of the project entitlement process.

Issues Identified by Staff
After reviewing the attached materials submitted by the applicant, staff has identified the following issues that will need to be addressed with the formal project submittal:
 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document including applicable technical studies (i.e., traffic, noise, water, wastewater capacity, etc.).  Development Agreement including affordable housing (number of units, affordability levels, developer obligation to construct, land donation, etc.), water neutrality, infrastructure improvements, etc.
 Addressing required findings for variance requests rather than meeting the zoning height and front setback standards.
 Access drive for emergency vehicles including firefighting operational areas.  Removal of the Separated for Assessment Purposes (SFAP) designation of APN 009-201-031.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Applicant Letter of Intent
Concept Plans
230621_ULI TAP Report_St Helena_FINAL
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 206 of 513 ends

ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES Page 1 of 9
October 23, 2023
Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
Aaron Hecock, Principal Planner
Xinia Gamero, Planning Permit Technician
City of St. Helena Planning Department
St. Helena, CA 94574
Submitted via email to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
RE: Pre-application for the ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES (“The Project”) located at 1001 Adams Street, St. Helena, Calif. APN 009-201-031 (“The Project Site”) and dedicating land for affordable housing located 1341 Mitchell Avenue, St. Helena, Calif. APN 009-263-001-000 (“The Affordable Housing Site”)
Dear Director DeRosa, Mr. Hecock, & Ms. Gamero,
Please accept the following request for the above referenced project on behalf of Antonio and Rita Castellucci, trustees of the Trust of Antonio and Rita Castellucci. Pursuant to the City of St Helena Zoning Code the intent of a pre-application is to receive feedback from the City Council for a proposed General Plan Amendment. The request herein is to change the zoning designation from Business and Professional office (BPO) to Central Business (CB). The request to change the zoning is to allow the submittal and review of a Demolition Permit to remove the existing 11,116 square foot commercial structure and associated parking and a Use Permit/Design Review application to allow for the construction of a mixed-use commercial building that includes hotel rooms, residential units, bar and restaurant, conference center, spa, fitness/wellness center, retail uses and basement parking.

In addition to the above requested entitlements the applicant is willing and interested to negotiate the terms of a development agreement to outline the community benefits, infrastructure improvements, and the affordable housing opportunity located at The Affordable Housing Site. Once we receive feedback from the Council, the project description will be developed with a subsequent detailed application. In addition, the environmental review process pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will begin and will be completed as part of the project entitlement process.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 207 of 513 ends

ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES Page 2 of 9
Location
The Project Site is located on the south side of Adams Street, one block east from its intersection with Main Street and is approximately 1.17 acres and consists of one parcel. The Project Site is currently fully developed with a parking lot, an 11,116 square foot commercial office building; both offices are currently unoccupied besides an outdoor automated bank machine (ATM). The Project Site is located one block from Main Street and bordered by commercial zoning on all sides.

The Affordable Housing Site, an 8,712 sq.ft. , or 0.2-acre parcel is located on Mitchell Avenue two blocks west of Main Street. The Affordable Housing Site currently includes two residences.

General Plan Consistency
The Project is consistent with the 2040 City of St. Helena General Plan adopted in 2019 by providing a stable economy and community sustainability, specifically as follows. Please note, the applicable General Plan policies are numbered below and in italics with the Project’s consistency below them.

A. Consistency with the General Plan – Resilient Infrastructure:
(1) “LU1.1 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”,
(2) “LU1.2 Allow urban development to occur only within the Urban Limit Line. Consider an exception for on-site employee housing on Agricultural lands. Urban services, such as sewer, water, and storm drainage, will only be extended to development within the Urban Limit Line”, and
(3) “LU1.5 Require new development to provide adequate infrastructure and urban services, including compliance with the policies and implementing actions affecting new development as set forth in the Public Facilities and Services Element.” (4) “ES1.3 Ensure the long-term infrastructure needs and priorities of the community are met as part of an economic approach to economic vitality and sustainability. (Also see the Public Facilities and Services Element for policies and implementing actions related to infrastructure).” The Project is proposed in the central downtown network and the Applicant is willing to entertain a development agreement to determine the scope of its fair share development impact fees.

B. Consistency with the General Plan – Redevelopment in downtown to support mixed use projects that contribute to the revenue stream:
(1) “LU3.9 In Mixed-Use, Service Commercial, and Central Business districts encourage residential, and office uses in upper-story locations or locations along the periphery of the retail district. This will facilitate active and pedestrian-oriented commercial areas.” (2) “LU1.6 Support the redevelopment of vacant and underutilized sites within the downtown area with mixed-use development opportunities. Encouraging infill development with a mix of uses Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 208 of 513 ends

ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES Page 3 of 9
will support a pedestrian-oriented, vibrant retail and commercial district that is centrally located and easily accessible to residents and neighborhoods;”
(3) “LU3.3 Support the redevelopment of auto-oriented commercial areas into pedestrian-friendly commercial uses;”
(4) “LU3.1 Strengthen the downtown area as the City’s social and cultural core, and as the primary center of retail services. Facilitate a healthy mix of retail and commercial uses, residential development, entertainment, and lodging;”
(5) “LU3.A Identify sites in the Central Business and Service Commercial districts for mixed-use development that are close to services and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use.” (6) “ES1.1 Maintain central St. Helena as the social, cultural, and economic heart of the City by supporting infill and redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels in the central St. Helena area.”
(7) “ES2.1 Support the development of responsible, visitor-serving components to the City’s economy as a valuable source of jobs, tax revenues, and cultural amenities. Promote policies that facilitate and encourage this type of sustainable economic development.” (8) “ES2.2 Encourage visitor-serving uses oriented toward an upscale market, consistent with the Valley’s reputation as a producer of world-class wines. Discourage the introduction of uses that are dependent upon a mass tourist market.”
(9) “ES2.3 Ensure a diverse mix of uses that avoids an over-representation of any particular use.

Remove the cap on the number of hotel and motel rooms and restaurant seats but continue to limit vacation rentals.”
(10) “ES2.7 Do not legislate or restrict the number of restaurant seats, but continue to prohibit formula restaurants.“
(11) “ES2.A Continue to prohibit formula restaurants, chain discount stores, and time-share lodging projects (excluding Fractional Ownership Lodging). Consider destination membership clubs and other potential lodging options that contribute to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue stream subject to a conditional use permit.”
(12) “ES2.B Study and recommend guidelines for permitting lodging uses in a range of land use designations and ensure that the requested uses will not result in significant adverse impacts to the community while recognizing that the hotel taxes provide a valuable source of revenue for the City. Remove the cap on the number of hotel and motel rooms.“ As described in more detail below The Project Site was specifically designated as a “Near Term Opportunity Catalyst Site” for a boutique hotel in the recently released Community Revitalization Study1 (“ULI TAP Study"). The Project Site currently includes a large parking lot and a drive-through automatic teller. The Project proposes to remove an auto-centric business into a mix of uses centrally located and easily accessible to walk to the commercial storefronts and activities. The Project proposes lodging, an elevated hotel and bar, retail, and spa which provide a healthy mix of uses with residential uses on the upper-stories, consistent with the General Plan. 1 Community Revitalization Technical Assistance Panel Report prepared for the City of St. Helena, ULI, March 13-14, 2023 “ULI TAP”
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 209 of 513 ends

ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES Page 4 of 9
C. Consistency with the General Plan – Ensure new development is consistent with St. Helena’s character:
(1) “LU3.5 Ensure that new retail and commercial development is compatible with and complementary to St. Helena’s small-town image. In addition, within the City’s Central Business District, new retail and commercial development should be of a scale and type that complements the historic character.”
The Project proposes an ultra luxury lodging experience and a unique restaurant, bar, and spa that is open to the community; all of which provide a caliber consistent with St. Helena’s image.

D. Consistency with the General Plan – Ensure new development promotes pedestrian and bike activity.
(1) “LU3.7 Provide sufficient auto and bicycle parking in order to serve local businesses in the commercial districts. Ensure that all parking areas are well designed and that auto parking spaces are hidden from pedestrian view, whenever possible.” (2) “ES2.4 Encourage green transportation options to circulate people throughout the community.

Promote sustainable modes of travel and reduce the number and length of vehicle trips generated by visitors to the community.”
(3) “ES2.6 Expand lodging in the downtown area to encourage walking, biking, and alternative transportation modes in order to reduce the need for automobile trips” (4) “CR5.A Develop a “park-once” strategy for visitors to improve air quality, reduce congestion, promote alternatives to driving alone, and educate and involve businesses and residents. Work with employers to encourage employees to park on the fringes of downtown, thereby leaving convenient parking spaces open for shoppers.”
The Project provides adequate auto parking with a full-time valet and is intended for the visitor to park their car once and use sustainable transportation. Furthermore, The Project will provide bicycles for their guest’s experience.

E. Consistency with the General Plan – Support the Agriculturally-based businesses and economy:
(1) “LU3.8 Provide sufficient opportunities for offices that support the regional, agricultural-based economy and the local needs of the community. “
(2) “LU3.10 Encourage office development within Mixed-Use, Service Commercial, and Central Business districts to complement the pedestrian orientation of surrounding development.” (3) “ES1.2 Identify and expand economic sectors in which the City has competitive advantages and capitalize on these strengths in order to diversify local economic activities and strengthen St.

Helena’s role as an agriculturally based service center for the surrounding area.” The Project proposal includes a conference center for the local agricultural businesses to have a central location for their business needs.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 210 of 513 ends

ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES Page 5 of 9
F. Consistency with the General Plan – ensure new developments do not obstruct views. (1) “LU3.11 Ensure that new commercial development does not obstruct view corridors to the mountains.”
The Project has been mindfully designed with view corridors to the east/west and the north/south on the higher stories which will not impede views to the mountains.

G. Consistency with the General Plan – ensure new developments are consistent in scale to the older buildings.
(1) “LU3.F Limit the floor area and size of buildings in the Central Business and Service Commercial districts to ensure that new buildings are in scale with typical older buildings in the district.”
The Project complies with the revied Zoning standard with proposing a 1.4 Floor Area Ratio, where the standard is a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0, which is consistent with the historic St. Helena Hotel.

H. Consistency with the General Plan – encourage affordable housing. (1) “ ES1.4 Encourage the creation of workforce housing to support the local employment base in keeping with small town smart growth. (Also see the Housing Element, Topic Area 1);” (2) “ES1.E Provide development incentives for new visitor-serving businesses to develop affordable workforce housing either through construction of housing or payment of an appropriate in lieu fee to develop housing elsewhere in the city. Such incentives shall include consideration of visitor-serving uses in Medium Density Residential or Higher Density Residential where a project provides affordable housing or an appropriate payment of an in-lieu fee.” The Project provides an opportunity for affordable housing at The Affordable Housing Site.

I. Consistency with the General Plan – encourage sustainable development. (1) “ES2.5 Encourage socially and environmentally responsible businesses that make positive contributions to the community and operate in an environmentally-sound manner.” The Project is designed with environmental sustainability and intends to make positive contributions to the community with affordable housing, providing employment opportunities, and contributing to the city’s revenue.

J. Consistency with the General Plan – encourage connection to the street and the commercial areas.
(1) “CD2.1 Maintain the character and identity of the downtown by emphasizing strong street definition, creating active front setbacks with outdoor seating, locating parking on the side and behind buildings, and maximizing entrances and transparency on building façades.” Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 211 of 513 ends

ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES Page 6 of 9
(2) “CD2.2 Within industrial and commercial areas outside downtown, maintain transitional zones as needed to protect public health and safety but allow flexible front setbacks while encouraging transparent and accessible front façades and parking on the sides and backs of buildings.” (3) “CD2.3 Encourage distinction within and between buildings by varying roof lines and articulating building facades.”
(4) “CD2.4 Ensure active and complete streets within commercial districts by providing sidewalk amenities, such as landscape buffers, berms, street trees, street furniture, outdoor dining, public art, signage, and wayfinding.”
(5) “CD2.4 Ensure active and complete streets within commercial districts by providing sidewalk amenities, such as landscape buffers, berms, street trees, street furniture, outdoor dining, public art, signage, and wayfinding”.

The car park is entirely hidden from the public view and the architecture provides balanced varied heights. The Project is designed with an intentional connection to the streetscape by providing a landscape buffer and the retail and coffee shop at the street front entrance.

Consistency with ULI Report
The Project Site was identified as the “Downtown Network/Flex Zone of the Downtown Core” and was specifically designated as a “Near Term Opportunity Catalyst Site” for a boutique hotel in the recently released Community Revitalization Study2(“ULI TAP Study"). The ULI TAP Study strongly supported development of a new boutique hotel at The Project Site and defined such a proposal as a “Big Deal” project. In addition to the identification of The Project Site to include a boutique hotel the ULI TAP Study encouraged mixed use and affordable housing opportunities.

Affordable Housing
The Affordable Housing Site, an 8,712 sq.ft. (0.2 acre) parcel is located on Mitchell Avenue two blocks west of Main Street. The Zoning Designation is High Density Residential. The Ultimate project description and the Development agreement will negotiate the terms and scope of the affordable housing opportunity.

Zoning
The Project Site is uniquely situated, bordered by commercially zoned properties on all sides - to the west is the Mechanics Bank located on a CB zoned parcel, to the north, the Westamerica Bank located on a CB zoned parcel, and to the east and south is the parking lot for the multi-tenant commercial office building located on a B&PO Zoned parcel. It should be noted that the request to change the zoning designation on The Project Site from BPO to CB brings this parcel consistent with the zoning to the bordering property to the north and west and does not create a pocket or island zoning. This results in a logical and orderly location to consider for this density of commercial development. Furthermore, there is currently no hotel in the defined downtown core. Even with the repositioning of the Main Street 2 Community Revitalization Technical Assistance Panel Report prepared for the City of St. Helena, ULI, March 13-14, 2023 “ULI TAP”
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 212 of 513 ends

ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES Page 7 of 9
Hotel, the proposed project, the Adams Street Hotel & Residences will provide a different market niche and wouldn’t be a direct competitor.

Community Benefits
The Project provides many community benefits and project commitments, such as but not limited to:
- City and residents would benefit from the increased Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to help fund civil improvements and recreation facilities and provide long term financial reserves. - The Project is sustainably designed with ultra energy and water efficient construction methods. - The Site is a Keystone project location positioned to activate pedestrian traffic to Main Street and Railroad Avenue.
- The Project would provide activity that would support local businesses and retail establishments.
- The Market positioning of the Project in the ultra-luxury sector is consistent with the high-end St. Helena brand.
- All employee and visitor parking are provided (almost 100) for on-site in the basement away from the public view.
- The open to the public restaurant and bar is located on the second floor overlooking views of Mt. St. Helena offer locals and visitors a unique elevated experience. - The luxury spa and wellness center is proposed to be open to the public. - The conference center provides an opportunity for local businesses to utilize it for larger scale meetings.
- The Affordable Housing Site provides an opportunity for 7-9 affordable housing units for the employees and local workforce community, and
- The Project includes ten market rate for sale residential units to contribute to the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Project description
In response to the results of the ULI TAP Study the property owner and applicant consulted potential development partners and was informed that for a hotel development project of this caliber it needed to include a variety of room sizes, at least 75 hotel rooms, include a spa and conference area, and have a residential component for the financial investment to be sustainable and for the project to be viable.

This critical information drove the project details and schematic design.

The proposed architectural theme includes a contemporary modern multi story structure with natural wood, native stone, structural windows, and mixed metal exterior finishes. The vehicle entrance includes a welcoming porte cochere with a dedicated valet parking attendant. The car park is proposed underground in the basement. The multi-story structure has internal view corridors to create daylight to the interior of the project and break up the exterior massing. The second-floor center courtyard offers a rooftop pool and elevated restaurant and bar overlooking Mt. St. Helena. Each hotel suite has a private outdoor patio and includes a 9’ plate height with floor to ceiling windows. The design has been mindful to the neighbors with a step back to avoid any direct views for privacy for both the tenants and Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 213 of 513 ends

ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES Page 8 of 9
the residents. The design, although multistory provides a courtyard feeling with a lot of open space, high ceilings, and intentional design to offer a low profile while catering to the luxury clientele.

The Project includes a total conditioned square footage of 69,063 sq.ft resulting in a 1.4 FAR, less than the required maximum 2.0 FAR. Of this total square footage, the following is broken down into the different land uses:
- Hotel: 74 guestrooms and 1 presidential suite for a total of 75 hotel rooms that account for 38,754 square feet.
- Residential: 14,946 square foot residences (consisting of 10 residences The average residence area is roughly 1,500 sq.ft. Eight of the residences are 1650-1700 sq.ft., with two small residences at 886 sq.ft.
- Commercial Uses:
- 3,386 square foot restaurant & bar open to the public. - 746 square foot retail store open to the public, located in front of the hotel. - 746 square foot café & lounge open to the public.
- 2,000 square foot spa and wellness facility open to the public - 875 square foot fitness center open to the public.
- 2,539 square foot conference center to accommodate an occupancy of up to 170 people, this will allow for outside users to rent it.
- Accessory Uses: to the Hotel & Residences is 5,071 square feet.

The proposed building footprint architectural element/porte cochere is located 0.75 feet from the edge of the sidewalk, within the prescribed setbacks. The primary building is setback 14’ from the edge of pavement on Adams Street, on the southern side. The building footprint is roughly 10 ft from the eastern property line and roughly 25 ft from the western property line. The northern and southern property lines are both angled. At its closest point, the building footprint is roughly 14 ft from both the northern and southern property lines. The Design Review Permit will include a detailed landscape plan for this area.

Variance Request of 7 feet to the height requirements
The proposed Project meets the objective design criteria of the CB Zoning District (St. Helena Municipal Code) besides the following:
(1) A request for a Variance of 7’ to allow a total height of 53’ to allow for 2,200 conditioned square feet and 1,170 unconditioned square feet. This area represents the second story of the six (6) 2-story residences. (Note this is area is less than 3.1% of the total footprint); Parking
In addition to the above requested Variances The Project requests the Planning Director support a 40% parking reduction to accommodate for the shared uses. This can be supported because there is a fulltime parking attendant, and the current trend is visitors typically arrive and depart by an on-call car service.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 214 of 513 ends

ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES Page 9 of 9
Occupant Type St. Helena Parking
Requirements
Quantity within
proposed project
Required
Parking Calc. Notes
Retail 1 per 300 sf 746 sf 2.486
Open to Public &
Hotel Guests
Grab & Go 1 per 300 sf 746 sf 2.486
Open to Public &
Hotel Guests
Restaurant 1 per 4 seats 70 seats 17.5
Open to Public &
Hotel Guests
Full Time
Employees 1 per 3 employees 15 5 -
Residence

1.5 parking spaces per
unit 10 15 -
Hotel Keys 1 per hotel key 75 75 -
Conference 1 space for 50 sf 2539 sf 50.78
Spa 1 per 300 sf 2454 sf 8.18
Open to Public &
Hotel Guests
Fitness NA 871 sf - Hotel Guests Only
Subtotal 176.43
The Project is providing 97 parking spaces all underground. There can be additional tandem parking because it is all provided by valet.

Conclusion
The project team is pleased to bring this project to the St. Helena City Council and is interested in the Council and the Public’s thoughts and feedback on this landmark project. The project team will consider all feedback and if the Council provides direction, will subsequently submit a thorough and comprehensive project application.

Sincerely,
Kirsty Shelton
Kirsty L. Shelton
Principal Land Use Planner
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 215 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

COVER PAGE
General Plan Amendment
Application to Rezone
1001 Adams St. from
Business & Professional Office
(B&PO) to Central Business (CB)
AND
Pre-Application for a Mixed Use
Project consisting of a Hotel
and Residences and providing
Affordable Housing off site
Submitted to the City of
St. Helena Planning Department
October 20, 2023
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 216 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN SITE

THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED TWO BLOCKS EAST OF THE

DOWNTOWN CORE OF MAIN STREET, A FIVE MINUTE WALK, AND IS BORDERED ON ALL SIDES WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. RAILROAD AVENUE

MAIN STREET

ADAMS STREET
N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 217 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE

THE OFF SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND TO BE DONATED, IS
LOCATED AT 1341 MITCHELL DRIVE, ST. HELENA, CA.

MAIN STREET

OAK AVE

MITCHELL STREET
N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 218 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

SITE PHOTOS - EXISTING CONDITIONS

LOOKING EAST ON ADAMS TOWARD SITE

LOOKING SOUTH ON ADAMS TOWARD SITE

LOOKING WEST FROM REAR CORNER OF SITE
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 219 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN VIEWS FROM THE SITE - CAMERA POSITION: +26’ ABOVE PAVING VIEW OF ST. HELENA LOOKING WEST VIEW OF NAPA VALLEY LOOKING SOUTH VIEW OF MOUNT ST. HELENA LOOKING NORTH
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 220 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION

THE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION STUDY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL REPORT (ULI MARCH 13-14,2023) IDENTIFIED FOUR
OPPORTUNITY SITES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. EACH SITE HAS A

DIFFERENT PROPOSED USE TO REVITALIZE THE DOWNTOWN NETWORK OF ST. HELENA. THE PROJECT SITE WAS IDENTIFIED AS A NEAR TERM BOUTIQUE HOTEL.

SOURCE: URBAN LAND INSTITUTE
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 221 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

CURRENT ZONING MAP
City of St. Helena
Zoning Districts
A-20: Agriculture
PR: Parks and Recreation
WW: Woodlands & Watershed
OS: Open Space
CB: Central Business
SC: Service Commercial
BPO: Buisness & Prof. Office
I: Industrial
PQP: Public & Quasi-Public
W: Winery
HR: High Density Residential
MR: Medium Density Residential
LR: Low Density Residential
LR-1A: Low Density Residential One Acre minimum
PD: Planned Development
HP: Historic Preservation
MHP: Mobile Home Park
PI: Parking Impact Overlay District selection
SP: Hwy 29 Specific Plan
St. Helena City Limits
St. Helena Urban Limit Line Date: 3/29/2018
i
µ 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Mobile Home Park
i
i
City of St. Helena
This Zoning Map is subject to changes
and should not be used for anything
other than reference. For the most up to
date Zoning information please contact
the City of St. Helena Planning Dept.

SPRING STREET

SYLVANER AVENUE

AVENUE HUDSON

VALLEYVIEW STREET

OLIVE AVENUE

BIRCH STREET

ALLYN AVENUE

NORTH CRANE AVENUE

MITCHELL DRIVE

SPRING STREET

REISLING WAY

MADRONA STREET

HILLVIEW PLACE

SCOTT STREET

VINEYARD AVENUE

DORIS CT

DORIS AVE

STOCKTON STREET

PINE STREET

ADAMS STREET

HUDSON AVENUE

ADAMS STREET

TAINTER STREET

SPRING STREET

VOORHEES CIR

SYLVANER AVENUE

CHARDONNAY WAY

COLUMBARD CT

PINOT WAY

CHABLIS CIR

SPRING BROOK CT

STOCKTON STREET

PINE STREET

KEARNEY STREET

PINE STREET

OAK AVENUE

ANDREA AVENUE

SPRING MOUNTAIN ROAD

SPRING MOUNTAIN CT

QUAIL CT

ELMHURST AVENUE
MAIN STREET (STATE HIGHWAY 29)

MAIN STREET

SOUTH CRANE AVENUE

VALLEJO STREET

SULPHUR SPRINGS AVENUE

MAIN STREET

ARROWHEAD DR

SULPHUR SPRINGS AVENUE

EL BONITA AVE

KENNEDY CT

LA QUINTA WAY

ROSE STREET

VINTAGE AVE
McCORMICK STREET

LA FATA STREET

DOWDELL LANE

FOUNTAIN STREET

MILLS LANE

CHARTER OAK AVENUE

MAIN STREET

KIDD RANCH ROAD
McCORKLE AVENUE

ALLISON AVENUE

BROWN STREET

POPE STREET

POPE STREET MARIPOSA LANE

POPE STREET

PAULSON CT

STARR AVENUE

HARVEST LANE

DEL MONTE CT

SAN LUCAS CT

PASEO GRAND DRIVE LOS ROBLES CT

RODONDO CT

SAN ARDO CT

LA CUESTA CT

SAN JAUN CT

LAGUNA SECA

DEL CAMPO CT

DEL RIO CT

COLLEGE
AVENUE

POPE STREET

SILVERADO TRAIL

MEADOW CREEK CIRCLE

HUNT AVENUE

MONTE VISTA AVE

GROVE CT

CHILES AVENUE

SIGNORELLI CIR

EDWARDS AVENUE

CHURCH STREET

ADAMS STREET

LIBRARY LN

RAILROAD AVENUE

FULTON LN

FULTON LANE

ALEXANDER CT

OAK AVENUE

KEARNEY STREET

MAIN STREET

GRAYSON AVENUE

VIDOVICH AVENUE

HASTY CT

PRATT AVENUE

WALLIS CT

PARK STREET

CRINELLA DRIVE

HENRY CT

CHRISTINE CT

JUNE LANE

SULPHUR SPRINGS CREEK

NAPA RIVER

NAPA RIVER
MNT. ROAD

BRITANY LANE
HOWELL MNT. ROAD

BIG ROCK
ROAD

MAIN STREET

DEER PARK ROAD

SIVERADO TRAIL

NAPA WINE TRAIN

NAPA WINE TRAIN
HIGHWAY 29
HIGHWAY 29

KNOLL PLACE

MARDONE KNOLL

KNOLL CIRCLE

KNOLL PLACE

KNOLL CT

SIVERADO TRAIL

VOELKER CT
ed

NAPA RIVER

NAPA WINE TRAIN
City of St. Helena
Zoning Districts
A-20: Agriculture
PR: Parks and Recreation
WW: Woodlands & Watershed
OS: Open Space
CB: Central Business
SC: Service Commercial
BPO: Buisness & Professional Office
I: Industrial
PQP: Public & Quasi-Public
W: Winery
HR: High Density Residential
MR: Medium Density Residential
LR: Low Density Residential
LR-1A: Low Density Residential One Acre Minimum
RR: Rural Residential Overlay
PD: Planned Development
HP: Historic Preservation
MHP: Mobile Home Park
PI: Parking Impact Overlay District
SP: Hwy 29 Specific Plan
St. Helena City Limits
St. Helena Urban Limit Line
i
µ

MEADOWOOD LANE
STATE
STATE

LEWELLING AVE

INGLEWOOD AVE
WHITE LN.

ZINFANDEL LANE

SILVERADO TRAIL
CONN VALLEY Rd.

HOWELL MOUNTAIN Rd.

CHARTER OAK AVENUE
Date: 4/24/2018
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 222 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE

CURRENT
ZONE:

BP&O

PROPOSED
ZONE: CB

BP&O BP&O
CB CB
CB CB
CB CB
CB CB
CB CB

BP&O BP&O

BP&O BP&O
N

RAILROAD AVENUE

MAIN STREET

EDWARD STREET

CHURCH STREET

LIBRARY LANE

ADAMS STREET

HUNT AVE

HUNT AVE
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 223 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

CONNECTION TO MAIN STREET
+/- 625’
N

RAILROAD AVENUE

MAIN STREET

EDWARD STREET

CHURCH STREET

LIBRARY LANE

ADAMS STREET

HUNT AVE
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 224 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN VISION FOR THE ADAMS ST. HOTEL
& RESIDENCES

A LUXURY BOUTIQUE HOTEL &

RESIDENCES DESIGNED WITH A

CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE

THAT PROVIDES A RANGE OF SUITES,

CONDOMINIUMS, AND AMENITIES SUCH
AS: A ROOFTOP RESTAURANT WITH A
VIEW OF MT ST. HELENA, A SPA, A FITNESS

CENTER, A CONFERENCE ROOM, &

RETAIL, LOCATED IN THE HEART OF
ST. HELENA

VISION STATEMENT
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 225 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

COMMUNITY BENEFITS
THE PROJECT PROVIDES MANY COMMUNITY BENEFITS, SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
• City and residence would benefit from the increased Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to help fund civil improvements and recreation facilities and provide long term financial reserves. • The Project is sustainably designed with ultra energy and water efficient construction methods. • The Site is a Keystone project location positioned to activate pedestrian traffic to Main Street and Railroad Avenue.
• The Project would provide activity that would support local businesses and retail establishments. • The Market positioning of the Project in the ultra-luxury sector is consistent with the high-end St. Helena brand.
• All employee and visitor parking are provided (almost 100) for on-site in the basement away from the public view.
• The open to the public restaurant and bar is located on the third floor overlooking views of Mt. St. Helena offers locals and visitors a unique elevated experience. • The luxury spa and wellness center is proposed to be open to the public. • The conference center provides an opportunity for local businesses to utilize it for larger scale meetings. • The Affordable Housing Site provides an opportunity for 7-9 affordable housing units for the employees and local workforce community.
• The Project includes ten market rate residential units to support the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 226 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

FIRST FLOOR PLAN & SQUARE FEET
AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130)
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH 1ST FLOOR

LAUNDRY/SERVICE

EXCERCISE

CONFERENCE

CAFE/LOUNGE

LOBBY/ARRIVAL
3-KEYS
R-1
3-KEYS
R-1
SPA
B-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
S-1
A-1
B-1
A-1
B-1
B-1
RETAIL
First Floor
21145 sqft (conditioned)
Lobby/Arrival 2,364
Retail 746
Café/Lounge 746
Gym 875
Conference 2,539
Laundry/Service 875
Spa 2,000
(22) Guestrooms 11,000
Unconditioned
(22) Patios 990
Walkways 7,975
Elevators 260
Stairs 230
N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 227 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN & SQUARE FEET
AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130)
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH 2ND FLOOR

BOH/OFFICES

BOH/OFFICES
STOR.
3-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
3-KEYS
R-1

OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW
S-2
STOR.

S-2
S-2
S-2
OPEN
OPEN

OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN
OPEN
Second Floor
14832 sqft (conditioned)
Administration/BOH 1,482
Storage 350
(26) Guestrooms 13,000
Unconditioned
(26) Patios 1,170
Walkways 7,083
Elevators 260
Stairs 230
Light Well

VIEW CORRIDORS
N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 228 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN Third Floor
16386 sqft (conditioned)
Restaurant 3,386
(26) Guestrooms 13,000
Unconditioned
(26) Patios 1,170
Pool Deck 6,723
Walkways 3,668
Elevators 260
Stairs 230
Light Well

THIRD FLOOR PLAN & SQUARE FEET

VIEW CORRIDORS
AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130)
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH 3RD FLOOR

POOL RESTAURANT

OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
3-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
3-KEYS
R-1
A-1
N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 229 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130)
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH 4TH FLOOR
1 RESIDENCE
R-1
R-1
1 RESIDENCE
1-KEY
R-1
1 RESIDENCE
R-1
R-1
1 RESIDENCE
R-1
2 RESIDENCES
R-1
2 RESIDENCES
R-1
2 RESIDENCES

FOURTH FLOOR PLAN & SQUARE FEET
Fourth Floor
14500 sqft (conditioned)
(1) Primium Suite 1,754
(6) 2-Story Residence (1st floor) 7,494
(2) 2 BD/2 BA Residence 3,480
(2) Premium View Residences 1,772
Unconditioned
(1) Patio 503
(10) Rooftop Patios 2,862
Walkways 2,270
Elevators 260
Stairs 230

VIEW CORRIDORS
N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 230 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH 5th Floor
R-1
2 RESIDENCES
R-1
2 RESIDENCES
R-1
2 RESIDENCES

FIFTH FLOOR PLAN & SQUARE FEET
Fifth Floor
2200 sqft (conditioned)
2-Story Residence (2nd floor) 2,200
Unconditioned
Patio 1,170
Walkways N/A
Elevators N/A
Stairs N/A
N

VIEW CORRIDORS
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 231 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN & SQUARE FEET
AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130)
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT

NORTH BASEMENT
251.5'251.0'250.0'249.0'248.0'247.0'246.0'245.0'244.0'243.0'242.0'241.5' TRASH
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22c
23c
24c
25c
26c
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34c
35c
36c
37c
38c
55c
54c
53c
52c
51c
50 49
48 47
46 45
44 43c
42c
41c
40c
39c
Basement
33,186 sqft (un-conditioned)
Total Parking Spaces 97spcs
20 Compact
31 Standard
17 Standard Tandem
20/97=20.6% Compact (30% allowed)
All Parking to be On Site Valet
N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 232 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

ELEVATION & SECTION
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 233 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

EXISTING SITE PLAN
G1.01

EXISTING

SITE PLAN
SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, LLP 707 963 8831
1050 Adams Street, Suite D, St. Helena, CA 94574
These drawings are the property of Signum Architecture and have been prepared specifically for this project. These drawings are not to be used for any other project, by any other entity or in another location.

ST. HELENA
HOTEL

DESIGN CONCEPT

PROJECT NUMBER
DATE

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY
SCALE

SHEET NAME

SHEET NUMBER

REVISIONS
2313

09.15.2023

JARROD DENTON
JD/JP

AS NOTED
CONCEPTS 09.15.2023

JARROD DENTON

PROJECT ARCHITECT
PRE-APPLICATION 10.20.2023
1 EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
N
(E) PG&E VAULT
(E) COMMUNICATIONS BOX
(E) ELECTRICAL BOX
(E) FIRE HYDRANT
(E) WATER METER
(E) H20 BOX
(E) WATER VALVE (E) LIGHT POLE (E) LIGHT POLE
(E) WATER VALVE
(E) CURB TO BE

DEMOLISHED
(E) CURB TO BE

DEMOLISHED (E) PG&E VAULT
(E) COMMUNICATION BOX
(E) PG&E VAULT
(E) WATER VALVE
(E) WATER VALVE
(E) SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
(E) 11,116 SQFT

OFFICE BUILDING TO

BE DEMOLISHED
(E) OFFICE BUILDING

DRIVE THRU OVERHANG

TO BE DEMOLISHED
(E) LIGHT POLE
(E) LIGHT POLE (E) NEIGHBORING

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
(E) NEIGHBORING

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
(E) CURB TO BE

DEMOLISHED
(E) CURB TO BE

DEMOLISHED
(E) STONE WALL TO

BE DEMOLISHED
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN

ADAMS STREET

TRASH ENLCOSURE
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE
TO BE

REMOVED
(E) TREE
TO BE

REMOVED
(E) LIGHT POLE
(E) PARKING
(E) SIDEWALK
120'X10'

EASEMENT N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 234 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN G1.02

PROPOSED

ST. HELENA
HOTEL

DESIGN CONCEPT

PROJECT NUMBER
DATE

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY
SCALE

SHEET NAME

SHEET NUMBER

REVISIONS
2313

09.15.2023

JARROD DENTON
JD/JP

AS NOTED
CONCEPTS 09.15.2023

JARROD DENTON

PROJECT ARCHITECT
PRE-APPLICATION 10.20.2023
1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
N
(E) PG&E VAULT
(E) COMMUNICATIONS BOX
(E) ELECTRICAL BOX (E) FIRE HYDRANT
(E) WATER METER
(E) H20 BOX
(E) WATER VALVE (E) LIGHT POLE (E) LIGHT POLE
(E) WATER VALVE
(E) PG&E VAULT
(E) COMMUNICATION BOX
(E) PG&E VAULT
(E) WATER VALVE
(E) WATER VALVE
(E) SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
(E) LIGHT POLE
(E) LIGHT POLE (E) NEIGHBORING

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
(E) NEIGHBORING

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN

ADAMS STREET
(P) SLOPED DRIVEWAY
5% SLOPE FOR VALET PARKING

BELOW GRADE

TRASH ENCLOSURE
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) LIGHT POLE
120'X10'

EASEMENT
(E) SIDEWALK

PROPOSED BOUTIQUE HOTEL
& RESIDENCE
69,063 (CONDITIONED) SQFT
10'-0" REAR

SETBACK
14'-4 1/2"
10'-0" SIDE

SETBACK
10'-0 3/4"
10'-0" FRONT

SETBACK
13'-10 3/4"
(P) PLANTING AREA
(P) PLANTING AREA
(P) ENTRY MOTOR COURT
10'-0" SIDE

SETBACK
25'-9 1/4"

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 235 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

RENDERED VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM MAIN & ADAMS
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 236 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

RENDERED VIEW FROM INSIDE THE RESTAURANT LOOKING NORTH
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 237 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

RENDERED VIEW FROM INSIDE THE RESTAURANT LOOKING NORTH
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 238 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

MEET THE TEAM
APPLICANT:

Trust of Antonio and Rita Castellucci
ARCHITECT:

Jarrod Denton, Partner
Signum Architecture, LLP
1050 Adams St, Suite D
St. Helena, CA 94574

LAND USE COUNSEL
Rob Anglin, Partner
Holman Teague Roche Anglin, LLP
1455 First Street, Suite 217
Napa, CA 94559

LAND USE PLANNER
Kirsty Shelton, Principal
Palisades Land Use
101 S Coombs St, Suite Y6
Napa, CA 94559

SURVEYOR
Albion Surveys
1113 Hunt Ave
St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 239 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

THANK YOU FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 240 of 513 ends

St. Helena, California
March 13-14, 2023
Technical Assistance Panel
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 241 of 513 ends

ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Cover Image: Downtown St. Helena Main Street A
Logo: City of St. Helena B
Unless otherwise noted, all photographs and images are provided by ULI staff or TAP panelists. External image sources can be found at the end of the document.
© 2023 URBAN LAND INSTITUTE
2 Bryant Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105
All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole
or any part of the contents of this publication without written permission of the copyright holder is prohibited. knowledge.uli.org
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 242 of 513 ends

ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
The Urban Land Institute (ULI) is a global, member-driven organization comprising more than 45,000 real estate
and land use professionals dedicated to advancing ULI’s mission of shaping the future of the built environment for transformative impact in communities worldwide.

ULI’s interdisciplinary membership of professionals from private enterprise and the public sector representing all The ULI San Francisco Technical Assistance Panel (TAP)
program is an extension of the national ULI Advisory
Services program. ULI’s advisory services panels provide strategic advice to clients (public agencies, nonprofit organizations, or nonprofit developers) on complex land use and real estate development issues. The program
links clients to the knowledge and experience of ULI and its membership.

Since 1947, ULI has harnessed the technical expertise of its members to help communities solve difficult land use, development, and redevelopment challenges. Since 1982,
ULI San Francisco has adapted this model for use at the local level, delivering 51 TAPs.

About ULI
About ULI TAPs
aspects of the industry, including developers, property owners, investors, architects, urban planners, public
officials, real estate brokers, appraisers, attorneys,
engineers, financiers, and academics. Established in 1936, ULI has a presence in the Americas, Europe, and Asia
Pacific regions, including over 2,100 members in ULI San Francisco (sf.uli.org).

TAPs include extensive preliminary briefings followed by an intensive two-day, in-person working session in the
client’s community. A detailed briefing package and guided discussion are provided by the client to each TAP panelist in advance of each working session. In these sessions,
ULI’s expert panelists tour the study area, interview
stakeholders, and address a set of questions proposed
by the client about a specific development issue or policy barrier within a defined geographic area. The product
of these sessions is a final presentation and report,
which presents highlights of the panel’s responses to the client’s questions, as well as a diverse set of ideas and suggestions. Learn more at:
sf.uli.org/get-involved/technical-assistance-panels.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 243 of 513 ends

ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Panel Chair
• Jane Lin, AIA, Founding Partner, Urban Field Studio
Panel Vice Chair
• Nell Selander, Director of Economic & Community Development, City of South San Francisco Panel Members
• John Bela, Principal and Founder, Bela Urbanism + Design • Noah Friedman, CEO/Co-Founder, Vibemap
• Jim Heid, Founder, CRAFT DnA
• Paul Peninger, Principal, BAE Urban Economics
• Edith Ramirez, Assistant City Manager for Development Services, City of Morgan Hill • Mariana Ricker, Associate, SWA San Francisco (TAP Report Writer) ULI TAP Committee
• Frank Fuller, Co-Chair
• Kara Gross, Co-Chair
• Mariana Ricker, Vice Chair
ULI San Francisco
St. Helena Technical Assistance Panel
ULI Staff
• Joy Woo, Senior Director
• Pooja Sharma, Senior Associate
Panelists during work sessions.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 244 of 513 ends

ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Lead City Staff
• Anil Comelo, City Manager
• Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
Public Officials Engaged
• Paul Dohring, Mayor
• Eric Hall, Vice Mayor
• Anna Chouteau, Council member
• Lester Hardy, Council member
• Billy Summers, Council member
• Joe Leach, Public Works Director
• Dave Jahns, Parks and Recreation Director
Site Tour Guides
• Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner
• Stephanie Smithers, St. Helena Chamber of Commerce
City of St. Helena Acknowledgments
Panelists, city staff, and ULI staff on the site tour.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 245 of 513 ends

ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 246 of 513 ends

ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 1
Executive Summary and Key Takeaways .............………………………………….......................……… 2 Context ..............…….............................…………………………………..……….............……........…… 5 TAP Assignment and Process .....….............……….………..……...………..………………….…….... 10 Stakeholder Input ..............……………………………………….…………..............……………………. 12 SWOT Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats ...............…...........…………… 14 Identity: Brand, Aspirations, and Vision ..............…...........................................................………… 18 Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze ..............…......................................…………… 22 Decision Making: Process, Choices, and Actions .................................................…...........………… 36 Concluding Recommendations for Implementation..........................…..…………………….....……… 42 About the Panel ....................……………………………………………...………….…....……………… 44 Appendixes and Sources ...…….…….………………………………..………………………......………… 48 Contents
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 247 of 513 ends

2 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Executive Summary and Key Takeaways
The City of St. Helena engaged ULI San Francisco
to convene a Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) of
multidisciplinary experts from around the Bay Area to
advise on the revitalization of the city’s downtown. The city provided four questions to the panel about the town’s identity, placemaking opportunities, and the development of a decision-making framework to support economic
growth. The questions were as follows:

1. What are downtown St. Helena’s strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT
analysis) that should be incorporated into
placemaking?

2. What should St. Helena’s distinctive brand be?
How should St. Helena differentiate itself as a
distinctive destination city in the wine country
region?

3. How can the placemaking effort interact with the
city’s current plan and land use regulations?

4. What is a potential decision-making framework
that can guide city officials in implementing the
placemaking, place-branding and urban design
perspectives? How can existing city tools and
measures be leveraged, modified, or updated to
support implementation?
The two-day workshop included a day of exploration in
St. Helena’s historic downtown, as well as interviews with key stakeholders, both of which provided background on
the city’s business environment, community sentiment,
past planning efforts, and institutional challenges
impeding progress. The panelists spent the remaining
time discussing potential solutions and forming
recommendations that were presented at the end of the
workshop.

The problem the panel considered was how could
Downtown St. Helena re-energize its economy to be more
vital, better serve locals and tourists, and develop a unique place brand within the regional competitive context.

St. Helena has extraordinary character and wealth
of resources, but is currently performing below its full potential. The panelists applied their diverse professional expertise to analyze the opportunities and constraints
facing the city and to identify a set of strategies and recommendations for St. Helena to accomplish its goals.

Image of Main Street today C
Panelist sketch of a reimagined Main Street.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 248 of 513 ends

Executive Summary and Key Takeaways
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 3
First, the panel looked at St. Helena’s identity within the Napa Valley region and as perceived by its own
residents. The panel observed that St. Helena’s existing brand identity is not fully aligned with the authentic identity as recognized and lived by the community. The panel
recommends that the city work directly with members of
the community to define who they are as a collective, what they want to be in the future, and how to best share St.

Helena’s unique culture and historic roots with the rest of the world. See ‘Identity’ for more (page 18).

KEY TAKEAWAY: Build the Brand Together
• Ensure St. Helena’s brand is an authentic
representation of its distinctive character and the
diversity of the community.
• Recognize a user experience that is good for
residents is good for visitors.
• Support culture-building events that celebrate
local arts and encourage inclusivity.
• Engage residents to collectively participate in St.

Helena’s vision setting for the future.

Second, the panel discussed the power of
placemaking to transform Main Street and the greater
downtown district. The panel observed that there is more to St. Helena’s downtown than just a “Main Street” and
suggested that future improvements should build toward
creating a legible, connected network of
streets with an emphasis on generating
a pedestrian fabric of interconnected
spaces, destinations, and
“discovery ways.” This concept
relies on celebrating connectivity
through laneways to parallel
streets and rethinking the
proposed Main Street sidewalk
project to be more focused as a
public realm development project;
providing more space for social interaction,
circulation, and visible economic activity in the public realm; and generating improved brand vitality along with a unique guest experience.

The panelists also considered the balance of land uses
throughout the district and recommended catalytic
development concepts to be undertaken on readily
available opportunity sites that would add vibrancy and serve the needs of St. Helena’s residents and visitors alike.

See ‘Placemaking’ for more (page 22).

KEY TAKEAWAY: More than just Main Street
• Place the existing sidewalk improvement project
on hold and reimagine Main Street.

Allocate more space to pedestrians.

Explore the implementation of a flexible zone
in the parking lane.

Revisit the Vine Trail bike route to potentially
go down Main Street.
• Think beyond Main Street, and consider the entire
downtown network of streets.

Reconsider the closure and pedestrianization
of Hunt Avenue.

Activate parallel streets, alleys, and laneways
with simple, low-cost strategies.
• Strategically develop key opportunity sites to
increase the vitality of St. Helena’s downtown and
expand the following land uses:

New boutique hotels
Mixed use and affordable housing
Creative pop-up partnerships
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 249 of 513 ends

Executive Summary and Key Takeaways
4 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
City landmarks—the St. Helena Hotel and the Culinary Institute of America. D Third, the panel considered the economic strategy
that could yield the greatest success in revitalizing
the city’s downtown. The panelists noted that far more
projects exist than the city has capacity to execute at this time. The lack of human resources and “bench depth”
has created a perception, and reality, of inaction that has been detrimental to public trust in city leadership. The panelists observed, however, that there is an emerging
political alignment and will to implement as much as
possible of the existing plans. Using their experience from other cities, the panelists recommended tools to help the city make decisions about which downtown revitalization projects to prioritize and how to build long-term economic sustainability. See ‘Decision Making’ for more (page 36).

KEY TAKEAWAY: Any Action is Better than Inaction
• Establish a project evaluation process to
determine which projects to pursue and prioritize.
• Separate projects into two categories for those
that are “big deals” versus “small wonders.”
“Big deals” include large infrastructure
improvements and opportunity site
development
“Small wonders” include public art, lighting,
planters, temporary installations, etc.
• Develop a unified economic development
strategy, and process tools to measure progress.
• Leverage existing funding sources that are under
the city’s control.
• Explore more complex financing strategies that
require voter approval, only after demonstrating
clear progress to the community.
• Take a red pen to the zoning code update to
ensure that it supports the city’s economic
strategy and stated long-term goals.

St. Helena is a town with a storied past, incredible setting, and many historic structures. However, it has resisted
changes that would have been necessary to help it
maintain its relevance and economic sustainability in the region. St. Helena’s state of arrested development was
highlighted by the region’s post-pandemic recovery. The panel observed that with all its intrinsic assets, St. Helena can look forward to a more vibrant future if the community can forge a shared vision for what it should be and commit to enacting constructive improvements quickly and with
momentum. The recommendations from this ULI TAP are,
in essence, a guide to finding that “north star”: a shared vision, along with the incremental steps needed to reach it.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 250 of 513 ends

DRAFT FOR CITY REVIEW 05.12.23
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 5
Context
Map of the Napa Valley appellations and vineyards. E
The City of St. Helena is one of several appellations within the world-renowned food and wine destination of the
Napa Valley. With its historic small-town charm, boutique shopping, and numerous wineries, St. Helena attracts
both local and international visitors. It is also the home of the prestigious Culinary Institute of America, numerous historically significant buildings, and a community of 5,386 residents.1
History of the Site Area
The land around St. Helena was historically the home to the Wappo people, a Yukian-speaking group whose village was located where Sulphur Creek meets the Napa River.

With initial development dating back to the mid-1800s,
the City of St. Helena was incorporated in 1876 and
reincorporated in 1889.2
At the center of the growing California wine industry,
St. Helena’s Main Street became a vibrant commercial
core to support the expansive agricultural operations
of the surrounding vineyards. Many of these buildings,
constructed in the late 19th century, still exist today and define the historic character for which St. Helena is known. Three blocks of St. Helena’s downtown district,
around Main Street, were placed on the National Register of Historic Places and were designated a Historic
Commercial District in 1998.3 A number of unique historic buildings are individually registered as well, and many of the single-family neighborhoods surrounding the downtown have maintained their original architectural styles.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 251 of 513 ends

Context
6 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
City of St. Helena Historic Resources (excerpt from General Plan Update). F Site tour image of one of St. Helena’s signature historic buildings on Main Street.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 252 of 513 ends

Context
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 7
Demographics and Economics
St. Helena’s population growth has slowed over the past couple of decades as the proportion of younger families has declined and home prices have increased. The
majority of the resident community makes more than the
area median income (AMI),4 is middle-aged, and lives
in single-family homes that are more often owned than
rented.5 These demographic trends suggest that St.

Helena’s housing market has grown stagnant compared
with the market in some of the neighboring Valley towns and Napa itself, the impacts of which are felt most strongly by younger families, lower-wage earners, and renters of all ages.

At the same time, St. Helena has seen a lack of significant growth in the commercial sector. While the city continues Households by household income level, based on AMI. G
to have a robust retail market, with an estimated $48,000 in retail sales per capita per year—more than double
that of both Calistoga and Napa6—it has also developed
a reputation for being anti-growth when it comes to new development, and particularly with regard to new hotels.

This sentiment, born of residents’ opposition, has been reflected in the city’s policies and priorities to date.

Both of these slowing growth patterns have placed
St. Helena out of sync with its neighboring towns and
competitors. Calistoga, for example, has recently opened several new hotels; Yountville continues to make a name for itself with world-class dining; and Napa has made
significant investments in its downtown.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 253 of 513 ends

Context
8 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Summary of Stated Challenges
The city recognizes that these trends will continue to
negatively affect St. Helena’s long-term fiscal health and the vitality of its downtown. As it continues to recover from COVID-19, the city needs to develop new sources of funding to address some of the outstanding issues that its residents and visitors are facing.

Many of St. Helena’s challenges are related to the physical environment and the lack of any recent investment in
the public realm. The sidewalk disrepair on Main Street TOT income comparison between St. Helena and Calistoga. H Site photo showing disrepair of sidewalks (top) and vacant storefront (bottom) on Main Street.
is an ongoing problem with legal implications; there is a perception that downtown has a parking problem; and the existing public open space is underused and insufficient as far as providing a permanent place for the community to gather. Along the heavily retail-dominated Main Street, stores close early, contributing to a lack of activation and vitality in the evenings.

Numerous planning efforts over the past several years,
as well as those currently underway, have attempted to
address these challenges.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 254 of 513 ends

Context
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 9
Overview of Planning Efforts
The General Plan was adopted in 2019 to provide a
blueprint for future growth, and the city is currently
undergoing a Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. The
effort has involved input from stakeholders, with a draft issued for public review last fall and anticipated adoption in the fall of 2023.7
In addition, the city underwent a visioning and
placemaking effort in 2019 called “Cultivate St. Helena”.8 A key component of this endeavor was the Downtown
Streetscape Plan, which focused on the repair and
replacement of the damaged Main Street sidewalks.

Specific studies have also been conducted to consider
the expansion of the Vine Trail and the potential
redevelopment of certain city-owned properties.

In spite of these varied planning efforts, there continues to be a lack of a unified plan for the revitalization of downtown St. Helena as a whole.
“Cultivate St. Helena” planning process infographic and preferred plan for Main Street. I Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 255 of 513 ends

10 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
TAP Assignment and Process
This ULI TAP was convened to assist the City of St.

Helena with the challenges it is facing and provide input on branding, placemaking, fiscal strengthening, and decisionmaking strategies that will support necessary reinvestment in the city’s downtown.

The panel was composed of real estate professionals with expertise in urban design, development, the public sector, and finance. As background, the panelists were provided with a comprehensive briefing booklet to inform and assist with addressing the following questions asked by the city:

1. What are downtown St. Helena’s strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT
analysis) that should be incorporated into
placemaking?

2. What should St. Helena’s distinctive brand be? How
should St. Helena differentiate itself as a distinctive destination city in the wine country region?

3. How can the placemaking effort interact with the
city’s current plan and land use regulations?

The two-day workshop began with a briefing by the City
Manager and Community Development Director, followed
by a tour of St. Helena’s downtown with city staff and a representative from the Chamber of Commerce. The tour
highlighted key opportunity sites in and around downtown, and provided the panelists with firsthand experience of walking St. Helena’s historic Main Street to gain a better understanding of its condition and feel.

For the remainder of the first morning, the panelists paired up to interview a number of key stakeholders from the city and community. The insight gained from the interviews
fed directly into a SWOT analysis exercise to assess
St. Helena’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats. This discussion established the framework upon which the panelists would formulate responses to the
questions.

The second day of the workshop was dedicated to further refinement and synthesis of the panelists’ responses,
as each drew from their own professional experience, to provide a comprehensive set of recommendations. At the
conclusion of the second day, the panelists presented their findings to a group that included the Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, city staff, and the stakeholders who had been interviewed the previous day.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 256 of 513 ends

TAP Assignment and Process
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 11
The panelists on the site tour and in work sessions.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 257 of 513 ends

12 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Stakeholder Input
To better understand the political, business, and social context of downtown St. Helena, the TAP panelists
conducted interviews in small breakout rooms with
key stakeholders invited by city staff. The full list of stakeholder participants can be found here.

The participants in these conversations ranged from
members of the local business community to elected
officials and represented a range of backgrounds with
unique insights on land use, the public realm, user
experience, and the city’s implementation process.

Across all interviews, some common themes emerged:

History and Authenticity
Among the stakeholders, and particularly those who call St. Helena home, pride in its history and its role as “the birthplace of wine country” was evident. Due in part to the preservation of Main Street’s historic buildings, there is a sentiment that St. Helena has an authenticity and
richness of character that might be lacking in some of its newer, neighboring towns throughout Napa Valley. Past
community engagement efforts revealed that the town’s
historic character, or “brand,” was something that the
majority of residents agreed upon, along with a desire to recognize the agricultural tradition that continues today.

While historic character is a critical aspect of St. Helena’s identity, some stakeholders also shared that the historic designation on Main Street can present additional hurdles to implementation and change.

Institutional Stagnation
Regardless of the sector they represented, the vast
majority of stakeholders interviewed spoke to the feeling that St. Helena, and its downtown in particular, had
become stagnant, with buildings that appear tired and
a lack of any new energy. Several stakeholders voiced
concerns that St. Helena is missing out on opportunities and could fall too far behind neighboring towns in the Napa Valley region. They expressed concerns regarding limits to the valley’s shared resources and capacity for growth.

The city has struggled with staff retention over the years and seen a loss of permanent positions in public-serving departments, such as maintenance. Frustration is growing at the lack of tangible progress despite many past planning efforts, as well as concern that the city is unable to get things done or partner with those who can.

Site tour image of historic building plaque. Article describing new hotels and restaurants around Napa Valley in neighboring cities such as Downtown Napa and Calistoga. J Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 258 of 513 ends

Stakeholder Input
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 13
Site tour images of Orin Swift tasting room renovation (left) and Wydown Hotel at the north end of Main Street. (right).

Engaged Community and Entrepreneurs
In spite of these challenges, a number of the stakeholders interviewed represented St. Helena’s engaged citizenry
and proactive local entrepreneurs. These community
members demonstrated a clear commitment to continued
investment and were confident about the capacity of the market to support new development, including at least 150 new hotel rooms.

The community members are educated and engaged
in the future of St. Helena. A vocal subset of longtime residents continues to oppose growth of any kind, but
another stakeholder suggested that they have begun to
see a shift—with the majority of St. Helena’s residents now acknowledging that something needs to be done to
revitalize downtown.

Visitors or Residents
While it is encouraging that a growing portion of the
community may be ready to see some type of change,
many of the conversations alluded to, or directly
referenced, a tension between change that benefits the
residents of St. Helena versus the visitors who come
there. Hotels are the proposed land use that has the most support from the city, but hotels primarily serve visitors and have been contentious with the community due to that fact.

Residents see a loss of community-serving businesses
and a need for affordable housing, and they fear that
new development will exacerbate existing disparities in investment.

Finding the balance between these two groups is an
ongoing challenge for the city, as it continues to rely heavily on retail sales taxes generated through tourism, while also needing support from residents to enact real, long-lasting change.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 259 of 513 ends

14 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Rendering of the new restaurant ‘NOMA House’ under construction at the north end of Main Street. K Based on background information provided by the City,
the site tour, stakeholder interviews, and independent
research, the TAP panelists performed a SWOT analysis to summarize the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing St. Helena. This strategic planning exercise considers both internal and external factors, and lays the groundwork for the recommendations to come.

Strengths
St. Helena’s biggest strengths come from its characterdefining sense of place. It is known for its historic buildings, small-town charm, natural beauty, food, and
wine. This is the basis of the strong business environment that exists here.

A number of local entrepreneurs are invested in and
dedicated to St. Helena, with established successful
businesses, access to capital, and an appetite for more. A handful of exciting projects are in the pipeline that promise to breathe new life into Main Street and keep the retail market strong.

St. Helena has an actively involved community, with good public participation throughout past planning efforts.

Small-town neighborhood events are well executed and
attended, bringing together this engaged, talented, and passionate citizenry.

SWOT Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 260 of 513 ends

SWOT Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 15
Site tour images of neglected public realm at Lyman Park (left) and on Main Street. (right).

Weaknesses
The most visible weakness of St. Helena is the poor
condition of its public realm. Limited investment has
allowed public spaces, such as Lyman Park, to fall into disrepair. Main Street struggles to function as both the center of town and as a highway. It is challenged by noise pollution, aging streetscape infrastructure, and the cost of upkeep. The public realm provides a weak pedestrian and bike network and lacks identifiable gathering space and clear gateways to downtown.

While some of these issues have been considered
previously, past efforts have been disconnected and
demonstrate a lack of clear vision. There has been an
inability to secure funding and establish key partnerships to produce results; this is partially caused by the city’s lack of institutional capacity and staffing. In addition, the anti-development sentiment present in the community
has manifested as prescriptive and restrictive zoning that creates unnecessary hurdles for progress.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 261 of 513 ends

SWOT Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats 16 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
SWOT analysis working photos of the panelists.

Opportunities
Given that the public realm is something the city can
improve, a number of opportunities exist for better
placemaking. Greater investment can be made with
physical improvements to activate downtown and better
serve residents and visitors alike. Suggested opportunities include raising ambition for the public realm through an expanded, walkable network that engages laneways
and side streets; the extension of the Vine Trail; and an increase of public art.

Several opportunities for new development on vacant or
underused sites also exist. St. Helena has the market
capacity to support and embrace land uses other than
hotels. Suggestions to be considered include mixeduse with affordable housing, and creative commercial endeavors. These types of land uses have the potential to make St. Helena more “livable, walkable, and workable”.

The city is also at a unique inflection point politically, with new staff members and an aligned City Council.

This presents a fresh opportunity to address the need for improvements and rethink strategies for the city’s longterm sustainability. Suggestions included strategies for securing more funding sources, and building advocacy
within an increasingly diverse community.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 262 of 513 ends

SWOT Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Public Parking Lot
1255 Oak Avenue
(vacant Catholic school
parking lot lease opportunity)
1001 Adams Street
(vacant BofA parking lot
interim lease opportunity)
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 17
A quick aerial survey of surface parking lots revealed a potential abundance of parking areas within a five-minute walk of the downtown core—privately owned lots in orange and publicly owned lots in blue, as well as available public street parking.

Threats
A number of factors threaten the entire Napa Valley,
including environmental challenges such as fire, limited water resources, and the impact of climate change on
agriculture, as well as macro-economic challenges like
inflation and loss of workforce availability.

Lack of workforce housing results in difficulty for local businesses to attract talent, and a burdensome commute
for many service workers, exacerbating the existing traffic congestion on Main Street.

St. Helena also faces a series of specific threats to its community, downtown, and economy. Some empty
storefronts on Main Street give the impression of a weak retail market. However, the per capita taxable retail sales here are vastly higher than in any other neighboring
district.9 St. Helena is also a place with more compact development than that of the rural landscape around it, which leads to the impression that parking is difficult. The issue is perceived to be a lack of space for parking, but in reality there is a lack of clear signage and management of existing parking. Nonetheless, these false perceptions pose very real difficulties, particularly when they are used to support arguments by a particular subset of the community against progress.

Implicitly, there are tensions that hinder consensusbuilding within St. Helena. The most obvious tensions are between visitors and the local residents and workforce, but tensions also exist between younger and older members
of the community, and between retailers and hotels.

These types of conflicts can deter economic development, and without acknowledgment and resolution, the city will continue to struggle to find widespread community support for policies and progress on key projects.

The largest threat facing St. Helena is that of inaction. A lack of staffing and funding capacity has hindered the city’s progress to date, and if not corrected, it risks the continued loss of market relevance and an inability to compete with neighboring towns.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 263 of 513 ends

18 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Vibemap generated from adjectives people are using online to describe specific places (examples: “affordable” food at Sunshine Foods or “nightlife” at Ana’s Cantina).

St. Helena Chamber of Commerce logo. L
The Napa Valley region is a world-class destination, but it comprises several unique towns that each offer a distinct experience. The panel emphasized that to differentiate
itself from neighboring competitors, St. Helena must build an identity that is truly authentic: a character that can only originate from and be built together with its residents.

Identity is about more than St. Helena’s “brand,” it is also about the community’s vision for its future.

St. Helena’s Distinctive Character
With its historic legacy as the center of Napa Valley wine culture, St. Helena already has global reach and an
international presence. At the same time, it has maintained its historic small-town feel with the preservation of classic buildings and the surrounding neighborhoods that are
within walking distance of downtown.

St. Helena is more than a tourist town—and more than
Main Street. It has a growing Latinx community, as almost 25 percent of St. Helena’s residents identify as Hispanic or Latino.10 In addition to residents, a workforce population supports the tourism industry, with many of the low-wage workers (under $25,000 annual salary) commuting here
for work.11 St. Helena functions as a real town with a
robust school district, family-owned establishments, and community organizations. This distinctive community
character reaches far beyond Main Street.

Identity: Brand, Aspirations, and Vision
Classic
Magical
Outdoors Romantic Beautiful
Authentic
Creative
Intimate
Family Amazing
Popular
Film
Nightlife Fresh
Comfy Healthy
Casual
Affordable
[food]
International
Hidden Gem
Fantastic
Local
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 264 of 513 ends

Identity: Brand, Aspirations, and Vision
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 19
Site tour images of both local and visitor serving storefronts including a bar, gallery, shops, and theater. M User Experience
Downtown St. Helena is the heart of the community. It
should be the local destination for shopping and other
daily needs, as well as the place where everyone comes
together to socialize and gather. The user experience of residents spans all days of the week, and all times of the day and night.

In contrast, those who come to visit St. Helena have a
more succinct experience. They come to the heart of Napa Valley to eat and drink, to shop, and possibly to stay. But they primarily activate the downtown on weekends and
during the day. Many of St. Helena’s businesses cater
specifically to visitors’ experience during a condensed time frame, closing early and leaving downtown St. Helena
without activity during off-peak times. This has led to tensions within the local community and a perception that visitor- and resident-serving uses are mutually exclusive.

Trends in tourism today, however, increasingly show that visitors want to go where they are able to live as the locals do. Therefore, what is good for the resident experience should also improve the visitor experience—and attract
tourism.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 265 of 513 ends

Identity: Brand, Aspirations, and Vision
20 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Interactive engagement strategies in Salt Lake City, Utah N, Salinas, California O, and St. Louis, Missouri P that ask the community to define their vision of their city.

Vision Setting and Culture Building
It is important to create spaces for people to come together and strengthen St. Helena’s community identity and build authentic culture. Ultimately, culture is made by working together to achieve something greater than ourselves.

The city and the chamber host a number of events,
such as the Holiday Wine Barrel Tree, that are already
extremely successful at culture building, and more
activities could support local arts and entertainment
and encourage inclusivity. These events can be used to
engage residents, provide a platform to share aspirations, and collectively define St. Helena’s vision for the future.

Building upon this vision, St. Helena can strengthen its “brand” to be a representation of the distinctive identity of the town: something in which the community collectively believes and in which it is invested. This process ensures that St. Helena’s brand will be authentic to its unique characteristics and culture. Through the robust presence the chamber has created on social media, city websites, and more, St. Helena can share its distinctive brand and vision with the world. This authenticity is what will attract visitors.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 266 of 513 ends

Identity: Brand, Aspirations, and Vision
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 21
Examples of community events within St. Helena: the Holiday Wine Barrel Tree R, the farmers market, and trivia nights. S Differently themed wayfinding concepts developed as part of Cultivate St. Helena. Q Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 267 of 513 ends

500 - 600 ft. Block Lengths

MAIN STREET
22 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
(Top) Panelist sketch of existing Main Street section with the majority of the R.O.W. dedicated to vehicular uses. (Bottom) How the city sees its Main Street: as a corridor.

The panel observed that St. Helenaʻs image of itself is too one-dimensional. St. Helena is much more than just
its Main Street: it has considerable potential to express itself as a larger district and multi-layered downtown.

Considering the town’s core as a larger district would
create a stronger sense of place, with a wide variety of economic opportunities. Expanding the perception of
downtown to include not only Main Street, but also the side streets of Railroad Avenue and Oak Avenue, creates a rich neighborhood fabric while simultaneously strengthening
Main Street’s role. Instead of a single corridor, downtown St. Helena would become a robust network of pedestrianoriented streets and destinations, organized into loops that connect to an enhanced Main Street and focused
activation at key opportunity sites.

Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
67% R.O.W.
dedicated
to vehicles

NARROW SIDEWALKS
11’ 7’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 7’ 11’

THREE TRAVEL LANES
+ PARKING LANES
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 268 of 513 ends

Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 23
Excerpts from the Cultivate St. Helena Downtown Streetscape plans. T (Top right) Sidewalk replacement with same street section and narrow area for pedestrian circulation. (Bottom) Overall streetscape plan scope area.

Existing Main Street
St. Helena’s Main Street remains the centerpiece of the downtown fabric; however, it also has a number of inherent challenges. Most significantly, it is a Caltrans highway and therefore experiences higher traffic volumes. These result in air and noise pollution, which diminish its “linger factor.” The pedestrian experience is confined to narrow sidewalks and is further challenged by long block lengths (500 to 600 feet), which are double what a comfortable pedestrian retail environment would seek to establish.

While the panel held high hopes for planned investment in Main Street, the proposed streetscape project is not much more than a sidewalk replacement project. The panel
saw both an opportunity—and a considerable need—to
address Main Street in a more holistic way, with sidewalk improvements, traffic calming, and an enhanced public
realm as integral parts of this significant undertaking and investment. The panel recommends that the improvements
project as proposed be reimagined, with a focus on making a bigger impact to Main Streetʻs public realm and quality of pedestrian experience.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 269 of 513 ends

MAIN STREET
1/4 Mile - 5 Minute Walk
Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
24 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Reimagining Main Street
There are certain constraints to working within the
existing Caltrans right-of-way (R.O.W.), but the lanes and sidewalks could be reconfigured to allocate more space
to the pedestrian realm within the quarter-mile between Adams and Spring streets (the blocks that comprise
the primary pedestrian core). In this segment, if the city pursues the closure and pedestrianization of Hunt Avenue from Main Street to Railroad Avenue, the center turn lane could potentially be removed to allow wider sidewalks on either side.
+25’ to
pedestrian
realm

REMOVE CENTER

TURN LANE
7’ 5’ 5’ 7’ 12’ 12’ 11’ 11’
OPTION 1
SPACE FOR DINING +

PEDESTRIANS
(Top) Conceptual street section of a reimagined Main Street with space reallocated to the sidewalks and flex zone. (Bottom) How the panelists see Main Street: with interconnected pedestrian prioritized loops.

FLEX ZONE
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 270 of 513 ends

Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 25
In addition, solving the perception of parking scarcity will be key to unlocking opportunities for rethinking of the ROW allocation and alleviating the demand for parking space on Main Street. The parking lanes along the entirety of Main Street could then be converted to flexible zones. Flex zones take various forms, depending on their adjacencies and community-determined needs. In some areas, parking
stalls may remain, particularly for ADA accessibility;
elsewhere, they could accommodate service, loading,
and pickup/dropoff areas, planting buffers, bike lanes, outdoor dining and retail, or a combination of amenities for pedestrians.

A case study using this strategy is the successful
transformation of Castro Street in Mountain View.

FLEX ZONE CASE STUDY: Castro Street, Mountain View, California In the 1980s, Mountain View recognized that the lack of a good quality pedestrian experience was detrimental to its downtown main street—Castro Street. By expanding opportunities for parking off Castro Street, the city was able to reimagine the curb lane, planting trees 30 feet apart to either retain parking in between or provide businesses with the opportunity to occupy this “flexible zone” with dining and seating.

A flex zone could be an interesting solution for St. Helena’s Main Street, which could be tested using temporary measures such as parklets.

Today, the City is exploring further modifications to Castro Street post pandemic.

Learn more about this project at: Castro Street 100 Block Feasibility Study Castro Street Redesign U
Conceptual sketch of Main Street flex zone with a combination of parklets, planters, and PUDO (pick-up and drop-off) areas.

Example of flex zone designations on Castro Street, Mountain View. U Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 271 of 513 ends

Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
26 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Converting Main Street into a more pedestrian-friendly
street would help calm traffic in downtown St. Helena and provide a more multi-modal environment for pedestrians
and cyclists. The Vine Trail alignment could also be
reconsidered as part of this effort, with the opportunity to form a connection directly down Main Street.

The panel also suggested tactical improvements as a
short-term way to demonstrate activation or change
before committing to permanent changes. Parklets and
other temporary curb lane extension strategies provide a lower-cost way of exploring modifications to the parking lane. This type of installation could be as simple as the introduction of tree planters or a complete patio buffered from the adjacent vehicular lane.

By requesting a grant extension for the One Bay Area
Grant (OBAG) funds currently slated for the sidewalk
replacement project and waiting for additional funding
capacity, the city will ensure the best possible outcome for the public realm, making the impacts to businesses and
investment of resources more worthwhile. Reimagining
Main Street will create the space to support the
spontaneous gathering and activation that it lacks today.

Vine
Trail!
(Top) Conceptual street section of a reimagined Main Street with Vine Trail bike lane. (Bottom) Precedent imagery of the Vine Trail V and sidewalk space for dining. W OPTION 2
6’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 7’ 6’ 12’ 12’ 7’

REMOVE CENTER

TURN LANE

SPACE FOR DINING,
BIKES + PEDESTRIANS
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 272 of 513 ends

Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 27
Guidelines for sidewalk width and clearances to optimize the pedestrian experience. X Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 273 of 513 ends

MAIN STREET
500 - 600 ft. Block Lengths
1/4 Mile - 5 Minute Walk
Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
28 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
The Downtown Network
Downtown St. Helena includes a network of streets that
support the entire district. Main Street has several parallel streets and alleys, including Railroad Avenue, Money Way, and Oak Avenue, which are mixed use and present less
traffic-intensive alternatives for pedestrians and cyclists.

With Main Street as the primary attraction in downtown, current patterns show pedestrians moving back and forth along the thoroughfare. This could be expanded to a series of walking routes or loops that include complementary side streets, alleys, and midblock laneways, bringing life and energy to existing businesses.

These supporting parallel streets also provide alternative routes that allow occasional partial street closures. Hunt Avenue was partially closed to vehicular traffic during the Hunt Avenue Hub pilot project, which provided outdoor
dining opportunities during the peak of the COVID-19
pandemic. Although this intervention caused push back by some business owners, the panel encourages St. Helena
to continue to consider parallel streets as opportunities for future activation to strengthen the concept of a
“Downtown” (and by extension, “Main Street”), either
permanently, or through more regular temporary initiatives.

How the panelists envision a multi-modal network of streets with gateways at either end of the Main Street’s core.

Images show pop-up dining on Money Way (left)
and the Hunt Avenue Hub (right).Y
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 274 of 513 ends

Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 29
Heat map data from STRAVA demonstrates how people have already created a functional network through their use patterns. Z

CYCLIST ROUTES

WALKING ROUTES

MAIN STREET

OAK AVENUE

ADAMS STREET

SPRING STREET

HUNT AVENUE

POPE STREET

RAILROAD AVENUE

MAIN STREET

OAK AVENUE

ADAMS STREET

SPRING STREET

HUNT AVENUE

POPE STREET

RAILROAD AVENUE
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 275 of 513 ends

Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
30 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Precedent imagery of “greening” Guildford Lane in Melbourne, Australia. AA Precedent imagery of an activated Clear Alleys in Seattle, Washington. BB The panel also recommended improvements to St.

Helena’s existing laneways as connections from Main
Street to the parallel streets, and a strategy for creating a finer-grained, more interesting, diverse, and layered network of 300- to 400-foot blocks. In places like
Melbourne, Australia, and Seattle, Washington, these
narrow spaces are prime candidates for public art, intimate dining, and other forms of activation and place branding.

Although once overlooked, in many cities, spaces such
as these have increasingly become compelling signatures within the urban fabric for their uniquely local character and their ability to provide a variety of experiences.
“Cultivate St. Helena” examined Telegraph Alley, and
a citizen-led group has already come up with several
ideas for its connection to an activated Money Way. The panelists support these community-driven initiatives as a complement to larger city-led projects. However, given the somewhat “gritty,” unconventional, and evolving nature of these spaces, the panel recommends that the city, and
sponsors of projects to activate these lanes, treat them as “temporary experimental spaces.” Use simple, low-cost
strategies to learn what works, what resonates, and what provides a ready point of identity for the community. The roles of these places should be “rapid prototyping” to try new ideas and create constant energy through innovation, not a long, drawn-out process that seeks perfection, risking entanglement in laborious code and design reviews.

Through investments in its alley/laneway networks
and by inviting pedestrian traffic through either design interventions or simply better wayfinding, St. Helena can guide people on foot to Railroad Avenue, Money Way, and Oak Avenue, thereby creating a walking district that brings life, commerce, and energy to the greater downtown.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 276 of 513 ends

Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 31
(Top) Site tour image of Telegraph Alley.
(Bottom) Citizen-led group vision for Telegraph Alley connection to Money Way. CC Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 277 of 513 ends

Opportunity Site - 1001 Adams Street
Near Term: Infill Boutique Hotel
Opportunity Site - 1115 Main Street
Near Term: Pop-up - Long Term: Redefine Gateway

LANEWAYS WOONERF

GATEWAYS
500 - 600 ft. Block Lengths

MAIN STREET
1/4 Mile - 5 Minute Walk
Opportunity Site - 1480 Main Street
Medium Term: Mixed Use with Affordable
Housing + Neighborhood-Serving Retail
Opportunity Site - 1309 Main Street
Immediate: Reposition of St. Helena Hotel
Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
32 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Opportunity Catalyst Sites
In St. Helena’s downtown, a number of underused sites
hold considerable potential for enhanced place branding and economic value generation through creative new
development and/or activation. Some of these catalyst
sites are publicly owned, whereas others are privately
owned.

Publicly owned sites have the potential for the city to drive catalytic projects by way of strong leadership and more economic flexibility via lower land basis. Privately owned sites may require more market-driven investment
strategies, but the city can be a supportive partner through aligned visioning, streamlined approvals, and (where
appropriate) supportive financial incentives. The panelists considered land uses and public/private partnership
strategies for these sites with a long-term economic view and a balance between visitor and resident priorities.

Hotel Uses: 1309 Main Street & 1001 Adams Street
The panel strongly recommended development of several
new boutique hotels, beginning with the restoration of
the historic St. Helena Hotel and also considering an
opportunity site such as 1001 Adams Street. The recently entitled Farmstead Hotel, at the southern edge of city
limits, is approved for 65 new rooms.12 However, the
market can support far more rooms, and the city would
benefit from the increased transient occupancy tax
(TOT) that such development would generate. Local St.

Helena residents may have a contentious history with
opposing hotels, but neighboring towns in the region have successfully managed new hotel growth and benefited
from the resulting TOT to help fund important resident
quality-of-life investments such as park maintenance,
multi-generational programming, and affordable housing.

Hotels located downtown bring overnight guests who
would directly improve the vitality after 5 p.m. The issue of lack of evening activity was raised time and again during stakeholder interviews. The hotels should include active ground-floor uses, such as bars and/or dining, that engage the street and have the potential to become places for
local residents as much as for tourists.

Opportunity sites on and off of Main Street would serve to activate the entire Downtown network.

See next spread for specific recommendations by site.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 278 of 513 ends

Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 33
Mixed Uses & Housing: 1480 Main Street
The panelists also supported housing for the residents
of St. Helena, particularly as part of mixed use projects with affordable options that serve the more economically vulnerable members of the community: families, seniors, and the workforce. Affordable housing should be
considered on publicly owned sites, such as 1480 Main
Street, so that the city can unlock state grant funding for infrastructure and transportation linked to affordable projects. The city could maintain a higher level of design control through a partnership with an affordable housing developer, and ensure a mixed use environment with
ground-floor, neighborhood-serving uses.

Pop-Up Uses: 1115 Main Street
Another creative public/private partnership could be
sponsorship and development of an incubator kitchen.

This growing trend relies on smaller footprints to provide a lower barrier to entry for people new to the restaurant profession and has been demonstrated to support job
creation. Such kitchens would also encourage longer-term investment in the city after a restaurateur becomes more established. Building on the legacy of the Culinary Institute of America, and the “foodie” culture of St. Helena, this is a great economic development tool and program addition for infill development at any number of opportunity sites in the re-envisioned downtown, including the panel-identified site on the parking lot of 1115 Main Street.

Conceptual sketches of the redevelopment potential at the 1480 Main Street site (left) and 1115 Main Street (Sunshine Foods) site (right).

See next spread for specific recommendations.
1480 Main Street,
Former City Hall
Interim activation at Proxy, SF. DD
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 279 of 513 ends

Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
34 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
HOTEL REPOSITION CASE STUDY: The Madrona Hotel, Healdsburg, California Originally built in 1881, the Madrona is a 24-room boutique hotel in Healdsburg, California. Co-owned and restored by renowned interior designer Jay Jeffers, this historic mansion was respectfully restored while still bringing a modern, eclectic, and energetic style to the space. The site restaurant caters to both hotel guests and Healdsburg residents, and has become an important part of the community fabric since reopening.

The repositioning of the historic St. Helena Hotel could similarly breathe new life into Main Street and become an important hub for the community.

Learn more about this project at themadronahotel.com The Madrona Hotel Restoration EE MIXED USE CASE STUDY: Parc on Powell, Emeryville, California Completed in 2015, this mixed-use project consists of multifamily apartments over ground-floor retail space and is adjacent to an off-site public park. The mixture of rental unit types attracts diverse tenants, and the project is a “complementary addition to the surrounding mix of residential and commercial developments.”
The mixture of uses and the mid-rise scale are appropriate to St. Helena’s context and could be a good template for the 1480 Main Street site and adjacent Lyman Park.

Parc on Powell Multi-Family Learn more about this project at: architectmagazine.com/project-gallery/parc-on-powell MIXED USE & HOUSING: Site Recommendations
1480 Main Street: Former City Hall
Mixed use with an affordable housing component,
groundfloor neighborhood-serving retail and
Lyman Park improvements

IMMEDIATE NEAR TERM MEDIUM TERM LONG TERM
HOTELS: Site Recommendations
1309 Main Street: St. Helena Hotel
Refresh and reposition
1001 Adams Street
Hospitality infill hotel with
groundfloor dining

IMMEDIATE NEAR TERM MEDIUM TERM LONG TERM
HOTEL INFILL CASE STUDY: Hotel Healdsburg, Healdsburg California Learn more about this project at hotelhealdsburg.com
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 280 of 513 ends

Placemaking: Concentrate, Connect, and Catalyze
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 35
POP-UP CASE STUDY: The Wash, East Nashville, Tennessee
Through an adaptive reuse of a former self-serve car wash, “The Wash” converted each of its six bays to create affordable, 400-square-foot spaces for chefs to test new food concepts and develop their business skills. This innovative low-cost offering provides a path for emerging chefs to get a foothold in the local market, refine their menus, and develop a local following before investing in a permanent space. The Wash has attracted a diverse array of talented young chefs and provides a range of moderately priced food options, creating an attractive anchor for locals in this East Nashville neighborhood.

With the Culinary Institute of America nearby for potential support, an incubator kitchen could create a unique St. Helena signature with opportunities for new chefs and constantly changing (and affordable) food options to residents.

Learn more about this project at: eatwash.com
The Wash, Adaptive Reuse Incubator Kitchens FF
POP-UP: Site Recommendations
Additional Future Opportunity Sites
Incubator kitchen
1115 Main Street: Sunshine Foods Parking
Incubator kitchen, Retail, Public Art, Events
(long term consider comprehensive redesign to define gateway)

IMMEDIATE NEAR TERM MEDIUM TERM LONG TERM
With all of these opportunities, the city will need a clear economic development framework, and a heightened
sense of urban design to ensure that the overall vision for downtown is upheld. There are a number of excellent examples on Main Street, where historic architecture
has been renovated with care to preserve the storefront authenticity while modernizing its use. This emphasis
on historic character should serve as a template for how the architecture of new developments can both create
gateways to downtown and reinforce the identity of St.

Helena. Additional opportunity sites not included in the TAP study area could also be considered for these projects and other types of land uses.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 281 of 513 ends

36 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Decision Making: Process, Choices, and Actions
St. Helena has a robust retail market and significant
resources, but it is also facing mounting costs associated with aging infrastructure and lacks funding and staffing resources to meet projected demands. These are
challenges that all cities face, and there are strategies to build a path forward. The final focus area for the panelists was to identify a decision-making framework to ensure
that the city does not remain stuck and that projects are prioritized to deliver long-term economic sustainability.

How to Evaluate Projects
As stated in St. Helena’s General Plan Update 2040,
“creating a sustainable community and stable economy
requires meeting basic needs and providing opportunities for current and future residents.”13 The city has identified a number of projects, many of which require significant resources. While the city clearly needs to advance projects that will generate revenue, the community is concerned
about prioritization of visitors over residents. The city would benefit by focusing on enhancing quality of life for residents while supporting tourism, and recognizing that the latter is a critical component of the city’s long-term economic stability, as the engine that will ultimately fund the services that will sustain the local community.

The city seems to be grappling with a wide range of issues and potential projects. The scope of some of these projects is significant and will require dedicated staff resources.

Adopting a list of decision-making criteria will assist the city in establishing priorities and ranking projects based on their ability to meet key goals. With each potential project, the city should ask itself the following questions:

Does it address a real or perceived problem?
Does it support the residents?
Does it generate revenue? What is the return
on investment (ROI)?
PROJECT EVALUATION CHECKLIST:

Does it leverage outside resources?
Do we have the capacity (budget and staff)
today to implement it?
Is it sustainable—can we maintain it in the
long run?
In addition, projects should be separated by the level of effort required to implement them. Some are “big deals” that will have long-term impacts for St. Helena but will require more upfront investment to execute and bring
to fruition. These include the large-scale infrastructure improvements on Main Street and infill development
projects at various opportunity sites.

Meanwhile, other, smaller projects could be low-hanging fruit, such as improved signage, lighting, public art, and the temporary installation of parklets or planters. These “small wonders” have immediate impact for residents
and demonstrate movement forward, while more intensive
city resources can be dedicated to the mid- to long-term “big deals.”
Precedent examples of “small wonders”: mural programs (left) GG or twinkle lights at Larimer Square (right). HH Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 282 of 513 ends

Decision Making: Process, Choices, and Actions
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 37
Process Tools
More broadly, the city would benefit from establishing an overall economic development strategy. The example
outlined here is borrowed from Morgan Hill’s Economic
PROCESS: Attract Investment through Land Use and Policy Decisions • Identify Opportunities:

What sectors have potential for growth
• Have Clear Intentions:

What are the long-term goals
• Develop Implementation Action Plan:

What is each specific step - Who is responsible
Identify Strategies
Develop Clear Actions
Establish Timeline
Assign Responsibility
Blueprint,14 a unifying vision that serves as the “North Star” for all future growth in a city that has overcome many of the same challenges currently facing St. Helena.

Excerpt from the Morgan Hill Economic Blueprint identifies the primary sectors with potential for growth. II • Foster Partnerships:

Where can partners support the city
• Use Economic Indicators to Evaluate
Progress:

How can success be demonstrated
• Remove Unnecessary Barriers:

How can the city get out of the way
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 283 of 513 ends

Decision Making: Process, Choices, and Actions
38 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
As projects begin to come online, it is important to be able to quantify their success. This will validate the
framework internally and demonstrate positive progress
to the community. Some economic indicators to consider
are those used in the Morgan Hill Economic Blueprint that demonstrate increased quality of life for residents, fiscal sustainability, job and housing growth, and the vitality of the tourism industry.

Excerpt from the Morgan Hill Economic Blueprint identifies the economic indicators to measure growth and positive feedback for the community. II Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 284 of 513 ends

Decision Making: Process, Choices, and Actions
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 39
Financial Tools
Hand in hand with this economic development strategy is the set of financial tools and funding sources available to support it. To begin with, it is best to focus on leveraging funding sources that the city can control.

The city could also explore a number of powerful revenue sources that would require some level of voter approval, depending on the type of tax or fee proposed. Detailed
descriptions of some of these revenue enhancement
strategies are included in the report prepared for the city by Baker Tilly15 and presented to Council in February
and May 2023. In these instances, it is important to have earned the trust of the community through quick wins
before placing a measure on the ballot to maximize the
potential for it to pass.

FINANCE: Leverage Existing Funding Sources and Expand Financing Potential Under City Control:
• Update development, impact, and user fees:

Ensure new projects pay their fair share.

Maximize revenue for the city without deterring
development.
• Apply for grants:

Develop a strategy for grant applications and
reinforce it as a matter of habit to become
more competitive.

Apply at the local, state, and federal levels.

Require Voter Approval:
• Raise Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT):

Approach to increase local revenue paid
by visitors without direct impact to local
residents.

Rate should be appropriate to regional
context and comparable to neighboring
jurisdictions.
• Implement New Local Sales Tax Measure:

Requires clear consensus on what tax
revenue should be spent on, such as new
public amenities (parks, recreation facilities,
affordable housing, or other resident-serving
uses).

Consider only after having built trust with
local resident community.
• Seek private-sector support:

Reach out to business community for
donations.

Have a naming policy to acknowledge donors.

Establish public/private partnerships for larger
scale projects.

Engage community volunteers: create an
active and involved citizenry.
• Review leases of city-owned properties:

Ensure they are aligned with today’s priorities
and modify as needed.
• Assess a Business License Tax:

Reassess the way that businesses are
taxed and consider the application of gross
receipts model to increase revenues.

Use funds for essential services like fire,
police, and street maintenance.
• Propose General Obligation Bonds:

Likely not politically feasible at this time.

Should be considered only in the future when
the financial situation is approved, as they
pledge community’s general fund revenues
for repayment.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 285 of 513 ends

Decision Making: Process, Choices, and Actions
40 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Special financing districts are also a powerful tool for local communities to raise funds for capital infrastructure costs in designated areas. They require buy-in and approval
from affected property or business owners and should
be evaluated carefully for both costs and benefits as
implementation of these districts can require significant upfront and ongoing resources. Examples of common
districts used in California communities include the
following:

Community Facilities Districts (CFDs)
CFDs are a financing tool, based on a parcel tax, that
can be implemented by local governmental agencies
including cities, counties, special districts, and joint power authorities to pay for a wide range of public facilities, or for certain public services. They require a vote of affected property owners.

Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs)
EIFDs are public entities that can finance the construction or rehabilitation of specific types of community
infrastructure, including public realm improvements,
housing, transportation and other infrastructure items.

Also requiring voter or landowner approval, EIFDs have
the authority to use tax increment financing, in addition to other more conventional funding sources such as fees or assessments.16
Property Based Improvement Districts (PBIDs)
PBIDs require a vote of property owners within a planned district. Their vote on a district management plan
would establish a scope of work for the district and the amount of taxation to pay for it, which would be collected through property tax bills. This is a powerful tool for commercial districts that can fund operating programs like ambassadors, but also ensure sufficient steady revenue
to bond against to invest in larger infrastructure programs.

If there are several major landowners in downtown that
are receptive and can help champion this initiative, it may be possible to create a PBID at a relatively low cost ($100,000 to $200,000 in consultant and staff time).

Land Use and Zoning Tools
The last piece of this framework is to more closely
examine zoning codes and plans through an economic
development lens. St. Helena is preparing to adopt a
comprehensive zoning code update17, so this is the time to thoroughly scrutinize it and ensure that the code is supporting the city’s established economic development
strategy and long-term goals.

Make zoning less prescriptive.

Allow spaces to be flexibly programmed.

Allow more uses by right.

Do not be afraid of density; control character
through objective design standards (form).

Make it performance-based zoning.

Invite your colleagues from other
neighboring jurisdictions to give honest
feedback.

CHECKLIST: Take a Red Pen to the Zoning Code
Lastly, be strategic about when a specific plan or a precise plan with an EIR can be conducted in lieu of a master
plan. For example, with the Downtown Specific Plan, this approach could facilitate the development process by
streamlining the community engagement process, building consensus once, and making it easier for individual
projects to move forward in the future.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 286 of 513 ends

ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 41
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 287 of 513 ends

42 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Concluding Recommendations for Implementation
The tools and strategies outlined throughout this report are broad-reaching and will take time to come to fruition.

The intention of the TAP is to establish a direction for a long-range trajectory for building a real downtown in St.

Helena and then to provide actionable steps that can begin immediately.

The first step is to invest in and grow the city team.

The panelists identified a considerable lack of “bench
depth”—capacity and skills needed to achieve St. Helena’s potential. This does not necessarily require hiring more permanent staff positions. The same outcome could be
achieved using a combination of permanent and temporary staff; interns and fellows; and consultants and contractors to address issues of urban design, tactical urbanism,
economic development, and new business procurement.

However, a critical role will need to be filled by someone within the city with the experience, entrepreneurial
sensibilities, and authority to advance St. Helena’s
economic agenda, negotiate on the city’s behalf, and work directly with the City Manager. Together this team needs to start with a clear focus on “how do we get to ‘YES.’”
The second step is to shake the metaphorical “money
tree” and tap into funding and financing sources
identified in this report. St. Helena is not starting from scratch when it comes to building out its financial capacity; there is already a robust existing business community
with capital to tap into. A sustainable financial strategy will include a combination of ongoing and one-time
funding sources, as well as financing tools that build on partnerships and community support.

The third step is to focus on the short-term wins and
actions that have a district-wide impact. The community of St. Helena is fatigued from planning efforts with no identifiable progress forward. One of the most impactful actions would be to catalyze regeneration of the St.

Helena Hotel: getting it back online as a crown jewel of Main Street. The city needs to champion the effort to get a high-quality operator who is willing to invest in bringing the property back to life as a high-end boutique hotel. This reinvestment would demonstrate what Main Street can be
and how it can attract new investment.

The city should use its additional staffing capacity to better articulate the value proposition of other existing assets by creating a marketing map of all downtown
properties. A similar effort could be applied to parking by conducting a comprehensive parking inventory, identifying opportunities for shared parking on underused private lots, and implementing a signage and wayfinding program to
direct people to the available spaces within the broader downtown street network.

Interim activation of the public realm is another easy, visible way to build community support and test the limits of what is possible in downtown St. Helena. Main Street, the laneways, and the broader street network all present opportunities for temporary tactical improvements and
creative activation through public art and programming.

Address deficiencies that impact resident quality of life Internal champion to work on a few heavy lifts
Partner with local business community to sponsor
Hire experts for specific tasks needed to realize goals PERMANENT STAFF:

TEMPORARY STAFF:

INTERNS & FELLOWS:

CONSULTANTS & CONTRACTORS:

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 288 of 513 ends

Concluding Recommendations for Implementation
Panelists at the final presentation.

ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 43
With increased staffing and funding capacity, as well
as buy-in from the community, the city can then begin
to tackle the longer-term “big deal” projects. Use the
decision-making framework to prioritize the following
projects and establish an implementation action plan:

St. Helena is a town with a great deal of potential. By building an authentic brand together with the community, the city will remain true to its historic identity and ensure that it is inclusive and representative of its residents.

Placemaking strategies that support the brand, improve
quality of life for visitors and residents alike, and look beyond just Main Street highlight opportunities for tactical urbanism as well as permanent infill development to
activate the entire downtown fabric. With the outlined
decision-making framework, the city will have the tools necessary to overcome its current institutional stagnation, build increased staffing and funding capacity, and get
projects done.

This combination of community partnerships, intentional investment, and a clear strategy for growth will enable St.

Helena to regain its position as the heart of Napa Valley, operating as a complete “small town” that fulfills the needs of current and future residents while sharing its authentic wine-country lifestyle with its visitors.
• Infill Development of Opportunity Sites
Identify the desired positioning, desired
community benefits, and market differentiation
between two or three new hotels.

Identify experienced partners who can
execute, define the most critical needs, and
establish required design parameters, and
then work to capitalize and build affordable
housing (family, senior, workforce).

Create a mechanism for public/private
partnerships.
• Reimagined Main Street Improvements
• Gateway, Identity, and Wayfinding Strategy
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 289 of 513 ends

44 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
About the Panel
Jane Lin, AIA, Founding Partner, Urban Field Studio
(TAP Panel Chair)
Jane is a licensed architect and urban designer that wants to make the communities we live in more vibrant, memorable, and enduring. Jane holds a BA in Architecture, MS in Architecture, and a Master’s in City Planning from UC Berkeley and is currently a lecturer in the Master of City Planning and Masters of Real Estate Development + Design programs. Jane was the co-founder of Urban Field Studio and has worked with her partners for many years prior to founding Urban Field Studio in 2014.

Her work includes urban design for transit area planning, revitalizing mixed-use districts, campus planning, and housing policy planning with local agencies throughout the western United States. Jane is particularly concerned about the public outreach process and the way we visually communicate with our communities and neighborhoods. She knows the conceptual strategies that she puts forward can only be successful when they are economically viable, community supported, and physically compelling in design.

Nell Selander, Director of Economic & Community Development, City of South San Francisco (TAP Panel Co-Chair)
Nell serves as the Director of the Economic & Community Development Department with the City of South San Francisco. In this role, she oversees four divisions critical to development throughout South City:

Planning, Building, Economic Development, and Housing. Prior to this role, Nell served as Deputy Director of Economic & Community Development with the City of South San Francisco, managing winding down the former South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, overseeing the City’s affordable housing programs and Community Development Block Grant, and supporting the City’s vibrant and growing business community. Before joining the City of South San Francisco, Nell served as the Economic Development Coordinator and then Economic Development & Housing Manager with the City of San Carlos. Prior to that, she worked on various, large capital projects for the Columbus Downtown Development Corporation in Columbus, Ohio. Nell received her Bachelor of Arts in American Studies from Stanford University and a Master of Urban Planning degree from New York University’s Robert F.

Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 290 of 513 ends

About the Panel
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 45
John Bela, Principal and Founder, Bela Urbanism + Design John is an urban designer and landscape architect based in the Bay Area. A former partner at Gehl, the Copenhagen-based design consultancy, and co-founder of the Rebar Art and Design Studio - the creators of Park(ing) Day. John launched Bela Urbanism + Design in 2021, an urban design consulting practice. John’s passion is to create human-scale neighborhoods, great streets, and a diverse, resilient public realm. John is a pioneer in user-generated urbanism and iterative placemaking and is skilled at applying human scale design from the scale of the neighborhood to the eye-level experience of everyday life. He holds degrees in landscape architecture and environmental design from UC Berkeley, biochemistry from UMass, Amherst, and Sculpture from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Noah Friedman, CEO/Co-Founder, Vibemap
Ever since Noah was a kid, he has used his passion and enthusiasm to bring people together. Noah is currently using his skills to help strengthen human connection and increase social consciousness as the CEO and one of the co-founders of Vibemap.

Born and raised in Berkeley, social justice and environmental sustainability are the lenses that inform everything Noah does. He has spent over 20 years in architecture, urban design, planning, and real estate development. At the same time, Noah also has a lifetime of success in real estate and technology investments. Noah is dedicated to his family and friends, and he is committed to making the world a better place for as many people as possible.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 291 of 513 ends

About the Panel
46 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Paul Peninger, Principal, BAE Urban Economics
Paul is an urban economist and planner specializing in the policy and planning intersections between financial feasibility, planning and sustainable development.

Throughout his 25-year career as a consultant, teacher, and community development finance professional, Paul has maintained a strong commitment to affordable housing as the cornerstone of equitable and sustainable communities and has successfully led or participated in hundreds of affordable housing plans, strategies, policy studies, and implementation projects in diverse communities across the country. In addition to housing, Paul has a deep background in real estate feasibility analysis and finance spanning the full range of land use and development types.

Paul is a Principal with BAE. He has led planning and economics projects relating to sustainability and resilience across the United States, Latin America and Australia. He has been an appointed lecturer in land economics for the Master of Urban Design program at the University of California, Berkeley since 2002, and currently teaches the core course on real estate economics and market analysis for Berkeley’s graduate program in Real Estate Development and Design (MRED+D).

A native of California, Paul has lived and worked in Latin America and is fluent in Spanish.

Jim Heid, Founding Partner, UrbanGreen Advisors & CraftWork Development
Jim is an infill developer and strategic real estate advisor focused on the tools and techniques that lead to a more sustainable built environment.

Jim founded CRAFT DnA, a real estate development company focused on incremental development and intentional place-building as a successor to his consultancy UrbanGreen.

A resident of nearby Healdsburg, CA for over 20 years, Jim sits on the community’s Housing Element Update Working Group, and is a recently elected Board member of the Healdsburg Chamber of Commerce. He founded, developed and operates a downtown coworking and business incubator- CraftWork - and designed and developed an awarded high density infill housing project – RiverHouse - amidst the City’s challenging growth management and archaic zoning codes.

An active member of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), Jim has participated in over 16 Advisory Service Panels, most recently Chairing a deep dive into Napa’s Oxbow District (2018) and a panel looking at Tower Renewal in Toronto, Canada (2019). He writes and speaks regularly on sustainable design, resilience, and the value of small scale, incremental development.

His new book – Building Small: A Handbook for Real Estate Entrepreneurs, Civic Leaders and Great Communities was published by ULI in 2021 and has received national acclaim as the best resource for communities seeking alternative approaches to infill and regenerate their community fabric. Based upon research gained through 18 Small Developer Forums which Jim organizes and runs, Building Small articulates the what, why and how of small scale development, and how it results in more economically resilient and socially positive outcomes than institutional development models.

Trained as a landscape architect at the University of Idaho, Jim went on to receive a Master’s degree in Real Estate Development from MIT as a way to more effectively integrate economics, development and design thinking.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 292 of 513 ends

About the Panel
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 47
Mariana Ricker, Associate, SWA San Francisco
(TAP Report Writer)
Mariana, a Bay Area native, has a passion for California landscapes and emphasizes the importance of site specific, sustainable landscape design. She enjoys working in urban settings that engage diverse user groups and activate the spaces that are most important to civic life.

As a landscape architect, Mariana seeks to create memorable experiences, connect people to the environment, and provide elegant solutions to programmatic needs. At SWA, she works on a wide range of projects from community parks to large-scale urban development and planning around the Bay Area and beyond.

Mariana holds a degree in landscape architecture from the University of California, Berkeley and is professionally licensed.

Mariana has been a member of ULI since 2018 and has previously been the writer on two TAPs: City of San Jose American Cities Climate Challenge and Parking Management, as well as City of Dublin SCS Property. Currently the vice chair of the TA4C Committee with the ULI SF District Council, Mariana is also involved nationally as a newly appointed member of the Sustainable Development Council.

Edith Ramirez, Assistant City Manager for Development Services, City of Morgan Hill
Edith is the Assistant City Manager for Development Services in Morgan Hill, California (Population ~45,000). She supports the areas of Planning, Building, Code Compliance, Housing and Economic Development as well as the City’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts. Edith has 28 years of community, business, and local government experience. Edith is passionate about improving communities by bringing people together to develop tactical plans that result in economic vibrancy, placemaking and long-term sustainability.

Edith started her career in local government as a policy advisor and community relations manager for a Council District 6 in San Jose, CA (Population ~100,000). Later, she spent eleven years with the San Jose Redevelopment Agency and worked in Downtown Development, Project Management, and Industrial Development. For the last twelve years, Edith has led the City of Morgan Hill’s Economic Development program and through extensive community and business engagement championed the revitalization of Downtown and the development of over 2 million square feet of new commercial and industrial investments in a community that had not seen any commercial or industrial development in nearly 3 decades.

Edith is active with the Silicon Valley Economic Development Alliance, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC). Edith is on the Boards of Visit Morgan Hill and the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds. Edith holds a bachelor’s degree in Political Science and a Master’s in Public Administration from San Jose State University.

Edith was born in Mexico City and immigrated to the Bay Area as a young adult. She is a mother of two young children, and lives in Morgan Hill.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 293 of 513 ends

48 ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Appendixes & Sources
Text Sources

1. U.S. Census Bureau for St. Helena, CA.

2. Briefing book from the City of St. Helena, February
2023.

3. Briefing book from the City of St. Helena, February
2023.

4. Briefing book from the City of St. Helena, February
2023; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.

5. Briefing book from the City of St. Helena, February
2023.

6. California Department of Tax and Fee
Administration. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/legal/
legislative-research.htm#sales-usetax.

7. Briefing book from the City of St. Helena, February
2023.

8. Briefing book from the City of St. Helena, February
2023; Cultivate St. Helena Staff Report.

9. Maya DeRosa, “New business, changes come
to downtown St. Helena,” Napa Valley Register,
February 14, 2023.

10. U.S. Census Bureau for St. Helena, CA.

11. Briefing book from the City of St. Helena, February 2023.

12. Briefing book from the City of St. Helena, February 2023.

13. General Plan Update 2040 (provided by the city).

14. Morgan Hill Economic Blueprint, City of Morgan
Hill, 2017.

15. Staff Report to the City Council, “Long Range
Financial Forecast Budget Strategies.” Memo by
Baker Tilly, February 28, 2023.

16. California Water Commission. Larry J. Kosmont,
Kosmont Companies. “EIFDs: Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing Districts Overview
- California’s Flexible Infrastructure Tool”
Presentation, February 17, 2021.

City of St. Helena Zoning Code Update, Public
Review Draft, October 2022
Image Sources
A. Visit Napa Valley
B. City of St. Helena (logo)
C. City Briefing Presentation
D. City Briefing Presentation.

E. Vinous.com
F. General Plan Historic Resources Figure 6.1
G. Briefing book from the city of St. Helena, February
2023.

H. Visit Napa Valley
I. Cultivate St. Helena Staff Report
J. J’nai Gaither, “Napa Valley’s Most Exciting New
Hotels, Restaurants, and Tastings,” AFAR
magazine, March 14, 2023 (Photo by Randy Andy/
Shutterstock)
K. NOMA House
L. St. Helena Chamber of Commerce (logo)
M. Cameo Cinema
N. Molly Robinson
O. Salinas Alisal Vibrancy Plan, 2020
P. Gephardt Institute
Q. Cultivate St. Helena Staff Report
R. sthelena.com
S. Chamber of Commerce
T. Cultivate St. Helena Staff Report.

U. Castro Street 100 Block Feasibility Study, City of
Mountain View / Gehl, 2021
V. Travels with Elle
W. gettyimages.com
X. West Hollywood Dining OutZones, prepared for
the city of West Hollywood by Studio One Eleven,
August 2022
Y. Napa Valley Register, Photo by Jesse Duarte, Star
Z. Strava
AA. City of Melbourne
BB. The Laneway Project
CC.Money Way Presentation (provided by the city)
DD.Envelope
EE. The Michelin Guide
FF. Southern Kitchen, Photo by Andrew Nelles, The
Tennessean
GG. Sydney Australia’s Laneways Temporary Art
Program
HH. Larimer Square [Official Site]
II. Morgan Hill Economic Blueprint, City of Morgan
Hill, 2017
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 294 of 513 ends

Appendixes & Sources
ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena 49
Complete List of Stakeholders
• Cynthia Ariosta, Managing Partner, Tra Vigne
Pizzeria and Restaurant
• Guneet Bajwa, Owner, Alila Hotel Napa Valley
• Oliver Caldwell, Owner, Caldwell Snyder Gallery
• Amy Carabba-Salazar, CEO, St. Helena Chamber
of Commerce
• Antonio Castellucci, Real Estate Developer
• Paul Dohring, Mayor
• Jeff Feeney, Coldwell Banker broker
• David Gates, President Emeritus, Gates +
Associates
• Linda Gates, Vice President, Gates + Associates
• Sarah Gillihan, Visit Napa Valley
• Joel Gott, food and wine entrepreneur
• Eric Hall, Vice Mayor
• Lester Hardy, City Council member
• Mark Hoffmeister, Owner-Operator, Wydown Hotel
• Dave Jahns, Parks and Recreation Director, City
of St. Helena
• David Knudsen, Community Leader/Former City
Council member
• Joe Leach, Public Works Director, City of St.

Helena
• Joaquin Razo, Executive Director, Blue Zones
Project - Upper Napa Valley
• Patrick Rue, Erosion Wine
• Dan Schaefer, Principal and Vice President, BKF
Engineers
• Glenn Smith, Commissioner, Active Transportation
and Sustainability Committee
• Loraine Stuart, Board President, St. Helena Family
Center
• David Walker, President, Engine Real Estate
Linked Reference Materials
• Cultivate St. Helena Staff Report
• City of St. Helena Zoning Code Update, Public
Review Draft, October 2022
• Morgan Hill Economic Blueprint
• Staff Report to the City Council, “Long Range
Financial Forecast Budget Strategies” Memo by
Baker Tilly
• “EIFDs: Enhanced Infrastructure Financing
Districts Overview - California’s Flexible
Infrastructure Tool”
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 295 of 513 ends

Appendixes & Sources
ULI San Francisco
2 Bryant Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
(628) 231-2197
[email protected]
www.sf.uli.org
www.uli.org
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 296 of 513 ends

ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES
1001 Adams Street, St. Helena, Calif.

City of St.Helena Council Meeting December 12, 2023
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 297 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES
Tonight, we are here to receive conceptualfeedback from the public and the Council for the following requests:
- General Plan and Zoning Amendment from Business and Professional Office to Central Business.
- Entitlements to allow:
- A three story 75-room hotel with:
- ground floor cafe, retail, conference center, and spa; - rooftop pool and restaurant/bar,
- underground valet parking, and
- 10 for sale residences on the two upper levels
- Offsite affordable housing
WHY ARE WE HERE?

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USEOF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT ISSTRICTLYFORBIDDEN Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 298 of 513 ends

SITE
The Project Site is located at 1001
Adams Street.

Two blocks east of the Main
Street.

Bordered on all sides with
commercial property.

N
ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USEOF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT ISSTRICTLYFORBIDDEN

PROJECT SITE
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 299 of 513 ends

LOOKING SOUTH ON ADAMS TOWARD
SITE

LOOKING WESTFROM REAR CORNER OF
SITE
ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THEORIGINAL AND

UNPUBLISHED WORK OF SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR

OTHER USEOF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS WITHOUTTHEEXPRESS

WRITTENPERMISSION OF THEARCHITECT ISSTRICTLYFORBIDDEN

PROJECT SITE - EXISTING PICTURES
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 300 of 513 ends

The affordable housing site is
located at 1341 Mitchell Drive
Two blocks west of the Main
Street
Zoned for high density
residential.

N
ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USEOF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT ISSTRICTLYFORBIDDEN

AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 301 of 513 ends

THE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION STUDY TECHINICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL REPORT (ULI MARCH 13-14,2023) IDENTIFIED FOUR
OPPORTUNITY SITESFOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. EACH SITEHAS A

DIFFERENTPROPOSED USETO REVITALIZE THEDOWNTOWN
NETWORK OF ST. HELENA. THEPROJECT SITEWAS IDENTIFIED AS A NEAR TERM BOUTIQUE HOTEL.

SOURCE: Community Revitalization Technical Assistance Panel Report prepared for the City of St.

Helena, ULI, March 13-14, 2023 “ULI TAP”

COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION STUDY
SOURCE: URBAN LAND

INSTITUTE
ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USEOF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT ISSTRICTLYFORBIDDEN

ULI TAP STUDY
The Project Site wasidentified asin the “Downtown Network/Flex Zone of the Downtown Core” and wasspecifically designated asa“Near Term Opportunity Catalyst Site” for aboutique hotel in the recently released Community Revitalization Study (“ULI TAP Study”). The ULI TAP Study strongly supported development of anew boutique hotel at The Project Site and defined suchaproposal asa“Big Deal” project. In addition to the identification of The Project Site to include aboutique hotel the ULI TAP Study encouraged mixed useand affordable housing opportunities Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 302 of 513 ends

Mobile Home Park
i
i
City of St. Helena
This Zoning Map is subject to changes and
should not be used for anything other than
reference. For the most up to date Zoning
information please contact
the City of St. Helena Planning Dept.

CT
NAPA
RIVER
NAPA
RIVER

KNOLL CT

VOELKER
i
l
City of St. Helena
Zoning Districts
A-20: Agriculture
PR: Parks and Recreation WW:

Woodlands & Watershed OS:

Open Space
ed
CB: Central Business
SC: Service Commercial
BPO: Buisness & Prof. Office I:

Industrial
PQP: Public & Quasi-Public
W: Winery
HR: High Density Residen at MR:

Medium Density Residential LR:

Low Density Residential
LR-1A: Low Density Residential One Acre minimum
PD: Planned Development
i
HP: Historic Preservation
MHP: Mobile Home Park
PI: Parking Impact Overlay District selection
SP: Hwy 29 Specific Plan
St. Helena City Limits
St. Helena Urban Limit Line Date: 3/29/2018
NAPA
RIVER

CURRENT ZONING MAP
City of St. Helena
Zoning Districts
A-20: Agriculture
PR: Parks and Recreation WW:

Woodlands & Watershed OS:

Open Space
CB: Central Business SC:

Service Commercial
BPO: Buisness & Professional Office I:

Industrial
PQP: Public & Quasi-Public
W: Winery
HR: High Density Residential MR:

Medium Density Residential LR:

Low Density Residential
LR-1A: Low Density Residential One Acre Minimum
RR: Rural Residential Overlay
PD: Planned Development
i
HP: Historic Preservation
MHP: Mobile Home Park
PI: Parking Impact Overlay District
SP: Hwy 29 Specific Plan
Date:

St. Helena City Limits
St. Helena Urban Limit Line
4/24/2018
ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

CURRENT ZONING MAP & LOCATION

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USEOF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT ISSTRICTLYFORBIDDEN Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 303 of 513 ends

CURRENT
ZONE:

BP&O

PROPOSED
ZONE: CB

BP&O BP&O
CB CB
CB CB
CB CB
CB CB
CB CB

BP&O BP&O

BP&O BP&O
N

CURRENT & PROPOSED ZONING
ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USEOF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT ISSTRICTLYFORBIDDEN

PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 304 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST.HOTEL& RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUMARCHITECTURE,ANYDUPLICATIONOROTHERUSEOFTHESEDRAWINGSANDCONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

CONNECTION TO MAIN STREET
N

CONNECTION TO MAIN STREET & RAILROAD AVE
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 305 of 513 ends

COMMUNITY BENEFITS
• Design. The Project issustainably designed with ultra energy andwater efficient construction methods. • The Site is aKeystone project location positioned to activate pedestrian traffic to Main Street and Railroad Avenue and provide activity that would support local businesses and retail establishments. The conference center provides an opportunity for local businessesto utilize it for larger scalemeetings. • The Market positioning of the Project in the ultra-luxury sector is consistent with the high-end St. Helena brand. The luxury spa and wellness center is proposed to be open to the public. • Parking. All employee and visitor parking are provided (almost 100) for on-site in the basement away from the public view.
• The open to the public restaurant and bar islocated on the third floor overlooking views of Mt. St.Helena offerslocals and visitors a unique elevated experience.
• Housing. The Affordable Housing Site provides anopportunity for 7-9 affordable housing unitsfor the employees and local workforce community.. The Project includesten market rate residential unitsto support the City’s RegionalHousing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
• Consistent with the General Plan. This proposal is consistent with 39 General Plan Policies. • Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to help fund civil improvements and recreation facilities and provide long term financialreserves. The summary ofthe economic projectionsshowsthat ifthe Project gains entitlement approval in 2024 and construction commences in 2025 and concludes by 2027. By 2028 the Project, inits first year of operations, would provide anestimate of $2.8M of total annualrevenue to the City inclusive of Transient Occupancy Tax, Property Tax, and Sales Tax. By yearfive,the Project economic projections estimate to provide over $3M annual revenue for the City. The estimated 20-yeartotalrevenue for the City is $73M.

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USEOF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT ISSTRICTLYFORBIDDEN Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 306 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

INVESTMENT & ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USEOF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT ISSTRICTLYFORBIDDEN TABLEONE: CITYBENEFITSUMMARY
Adams Street Hotel & Residences
St. Helena, CA- NapaValley
75 Hotel Suites
10 Penhouses
Assumptions:
70%average occupancy in Year 2 and thereafter.

Excludes on-premise group event, retail, and spa sales and off-site affordable housing. 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Est. 20-Year
RevenueEstimates for City Half-Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Totals Transient Occupancy Tax $ 1,084,546 $ 2,439,441 $ 2,512,624 $ 2,588,003 $ 2,665,643 $ 62,355,661 Property Tax $ 99,600 $ 123,480 $ 129,392 $ 132,458 $ 136,518 $ 3,123,253 SalesTax (on- and off-premise) $ 107,406 $ 246,276 $ 258,590 $ 271,520 $ 285,096 $ 7,628,443 Total $ 1,291,552 $ 2,809,197 $ 2,900,607 $ 2,991,981 $ 3,087,257 $ 73,107,358

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 307 of 513 ends

Architectural Design
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 308 of 513 ends

VISION STATEMENT FOR THE ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES A luxury boutique hotel and residences
designed with contemporary architecture
that provides a range of suites and amenities, such as:
a rooftop restaurant with a view of Mt. St. Helena
a spa, fitness center, conference room, and retail
located in the heart of downtown St. Helena.

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USEOF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT ISSTRICTLYFORBIDDEN

VISION STATEMENT
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 309 of 513 ends

VIEW OF NAPA VALLEY LOOKING
SOUTH
VIEW OF ST.HELENA LOOKING
WEST
VIEW OF MOUNT ST. HELENA LOOKING
NORTH
ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USEOF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT ISSTRICTLYFORBIDDEN PROJECT SITE - VIEWS AT + 26’
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 310 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

FIRST FLOOR PLAN & SQUARE FEET
AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130)
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH 1ST FLOOR

LAUNDRY/SERVICE

EXCERCISE

CONFERENCE

CAFE/LOUNGE

Page 311 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN & SQUARE FEET
AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130)
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH 2ND FLOOR

BOH/OFFICES

BOH/OFFICES
STOR.
3-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
3-KEYS
R-1

OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW
S-2
STOR.

S-2
S-2
S-2
OPEN
OPEN

OPEN TO BELOW

VIEW CORRIDORS
N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 312 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

THIRD FLOOR PLAN & SQUARE FEET

VIEW CORRIDORS
AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130)
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH 3RD FLOOR

POOL RESTAURANT

OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
3-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
4-KEYS
R-1
3-KEYS
R-1
A-1
N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 313 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130)
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH 4TH FLOOR
1 RESIDENCE
R-1
R-1
1 RESIDENCE
1-KEY
R-1
1 RESIDENCE
R-1
R-1
1 RESIDENCE
R-1
2 RESIDENCES
R-1
2 RESIDENCES
R-1
2 RESIDENCES

VIEW CORRIDORS
N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 314 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH 5th Floor
R-1
2 RESIDENCES
R-1
2 RESIDENCES
R-1
2 RESIDENCES

FIFTH FLOOR PLAN & SQUARE FEET
Fifth Floor
2200 sqft (conditioned)
2-Story Residence (2nd floor) 2,200
Unconditioned
Patio 1,170
Walkways N/A
Elevators N/A
Stairs N/A
N

VIEW CORRIDORS
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 315 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN & SQUARE FEET
AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130)
N
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT

Page 316 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

EXISTING SITE PLAN
G1.01

EXISTING

ST. HELENA
HOTEL

DESIGN CONCEPT

PROJECT NUMBER
DATE

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY
SCALE

SHEET NAME

SHEET NUMBER

REVISIONS
2313

09.15.2023

JARROD DENTON
JD/JP

AS NOTED
CONCEPTS 09.15.2023

JARROD DENTON

DEMOLISHED
(E) CURB TO BE

DEMOLISHED (E) PG&E VAULT
(E) COMMUNICATION BOX
(E) PG&E VAULT
(E) WATER VALVE
(E) WATER VALVE
(E) SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
(E) 11,116 SQFT

OFFICE BUILDING TO

BE DEMOLISHED
(E) OFFICE BUILDING

DRIVE THRU OVERHANG

TO BE DEMOLISHED
(E) LIGHT POLE
(E) LIGHT POLE (E) NEIGHBORING

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
(E) NEIGHBORING

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
(E) CURB TO BE

DEMOLISHED
(E) CURB TO BE

DEMOLISHED
(E) STONE WALL TO

BE DEMOLISHED
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN

ADAMS STREET

TRASH ENLCOSURE
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) TREE
TO BE

REMOVED
(E) TREE
TO BE

REMOVED
(E) LIGHT POLE
(E) PARKING
(E) SIDEWALK
120'X10'

EASEMENT N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 317 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN G1.02

PROPOSED

ST. HELENA
HOTEL

DESIGN CONCEPT

PROJECT NUMBER
DATE

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY
SCALE

SHEET NAME

SHEET NUMBER

REVISIONS
2313

09.15.2023

JARROD DENTON
JD/JP

AS NOTED
CONCEPTS 09.15.2023

JARROD DENTON

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
(E) NEIGHBORING

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN
(E) TREE TO REMAIN

ADAMS STREET
(P) SLOPED DRIVEWAY
5% SLOPE FOR VALET PARKING

BELOW GRADE

TRASH ENCLOSURE
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
(E) LIGHT POLE
120'X10'

EASEMENT
(E) SIDEWALK

PROPOSED BOUTIQUE HOTEL
& RESIDENCE
69,063 (CONDITIONED) SQFT
10'-0" REAR

SETBACK
14'-4 1/2"
10'-0" SIDE

SETBACK
10'-0 3/4"
10'-0" FRONT

SETBACK
13'-10 3/4"
(P) PLANTING AREA
(P) PLANTING AREA
(P) ENTRY MOTOR COURT
10'-0" SIDE

SETBACK
25'-9 1/4"

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 318 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST.HOTEL& RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUMARCHITECTURE,ANYDUPLICATIONOROTHERUSEOFTHESEDRAWINGSANDCONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

ELEVATION & SECTION

ADAMS STREET
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 319 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

RENDERED VIEW WITH IDENTIFIED PROGRAM
PROGRAM ELEMENTS:

HOTEL ROOMS

RESIDENCES

RETAIL & CAFE

LANDSCAPE BUFFER

RESTAURANT & POOL DECK

PROGRAM ELEMENTS

HOTEL ROOMS

RESIDENCES

RETAIL & CAFE

LANDSCAPE BUFFER

RESTAURANT & POOL DECK

BELOW GRADE PARKING
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 320 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

RENDERED VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM MAIN & ADAMS
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 321 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

RENDERED VIEW FROM INSIDE THE RESTAURANT LOOKING NORTH
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 322 of 513 ends

ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN

RENDERED VIEW FROM INSIDE THE RESTAURANT LOOKING NORTH
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 323 of 513 ends

We welcome your feedback.

Thank you!
ADAMS ST. HOTEL & RESIDENCES

THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS REPRESENTS THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF

SIGNUM ARCHITECTURE, ANY DUPLICATION OR OTHER USEOF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTS

WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT ISSTRICTLYFORBIDDEN Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 324 of 513 ends

Staff recommends that the City Council provide the applicant feedback on the concept plan including but not limited to:

1. Request for a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to Central Business District to accommodate the mixed-use project at the proposed location;

2. Potential issues or concerns about the concept, including the Variance requests to allow an additional 7’ to the overall height and to allow the landscape buffer at 20’ and provide more than the maximum 8’ front setback;

3. Preference on if the bar/restaurant component should be active ground floor use that engages the street versus upper floor; and

4. Points of emphasis to address with the formal application and Development Agreement.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 325 of 513 ends

Page 326 of 513 ends

Lynn and Edward Poole
555 Wheeler Lane
St. Helena, CA 94574
December 11, 2023
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
Maya Derosa
Community Development Director
1088 College Ave
St Helena Ca 94574
RE: ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES
Dear Ms. Derosa:

My wife and I are residents of St. Helena at 555 Wheler Lane, and make frequent trips to Main Street. We have reviewed the plans for the Adams Street Hotel and Residences and are supportive of the project. Architecturally, we thin it is a great looking building. It’s proximity to Main Street is also a big plus – how very beneficial for guests to walk and shop on Main Street We believe the City needs more hotel rooms and use those taxes for city infrastructure improvements We urge your support of the project.

Very truly yours,
/s/
Lynn and Edward Poole
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 327 of 513 ends

Page 328 of 513 ends

From: Carmen Policy
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Adams Street Hotel & Residences - City Council Meeting 12-12-2023 Date: Monday, December 11, 2023 6:12:59 AM
Dear Clerk of City Council,
Please include my hearty endorsement of the Adams Street Hotel & Residences plan being brought before our City Council on Tuesday December 12, 2023. I have reviewed the plan ( ADAMS STREET HOTEL & RESIDENCES) and find it to be extremely exciting and capable of meeting so many needs of our entire community with minimal impact to the area’s functionality or quality of use. The advantages speak for themselves in the report and offer so many advantages from a business, finance, life style, services with acceptable impact on the public services required.

Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this project.

Carmen A. Policy
St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 329 of 513 ends

Page 330 of 513 ends

PO Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org December 11, 2023
Re: Agenda Item 13.1 Pre-Application Review for Adams Street Development – Public Comment
Dear Mayor Dohring and Councilmembers,
The Napa County Bicycle Coalition (NCBC) represents over 2,000 members and supporters throughout Napa County in advocating to make riding a bicycle in our communities safe, convenient, and accessible for riders of all ages and abilities. For over 15 years, NCBC has worked with local organizations, businesses, elected officials, and the public to align our transportation infrastructure with the needs of cyclists and other active transportation users.

As City Council provides feedback on the Castellucci’s concept plan for a mixed-use development at 1001 Adams Street, the Napa County Bicycle Coalition requests that Council include the following feedback to the applicants for their formal application:
1) Provide short-term bicycle parking for the amenities open to the public – the café, restaurant and bar, fitness center, etc. Short-term bike parking is not included in the pre-application, though it is mandated for non-residential developments by CalGreen Non-Residential Bicycle Parking Requirements (5.106.4.1.1). We request that short term bicycle parking be provided within 50’ of the main entrance rather than the mandated 200’. The Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals, whose standards the League of American Bicyclists uses to evaluate Bicycle Friendly Cities, recommends bike parking placement within 50’. This is important now as more expensive e-bikes and other micromobility devices are selling well and can and are replacing car trips.

However, if users do not feel bike parking is safe—if parking is far away, around a corner, or lacking a line of sight—they will be less likely to select this more environmentally-friendly method of travel. The world of biking has changed dramatically and quickly, and bike parking needs to evolve accordingly. 2) Provide secure long-term bicycle parking for employee use in order to promote bicycle commuting as a viable transportation alternative. See CalGreen NonResidential Bicycle Parking Requirements (5.106.4.1.2) for requirements and acceptable long-term facility types.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 331 of 513 ends

PO Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org 3) Include in the Development Agreement a term requiring the applicants to install, or provide funding to install, Class II bike lanes along Adams Street to continue the future Class II bike lanes approved with the Hunter Subdivision further south.

Including new, dedicated Class II bike lanes with this development can help reduce potential traffic impact by encouraging residents and visitors to travel by bicycle.

Our requests align with St. Helena General Plan policies CR2.3: “Ensure secure, accessible, and convenient bicycle parking facilities throughout St. Helena, including downtown, commercial areas, schools, and parks” and CR2.C: “Require any new development and modifications to existing projects to provide bicycle and pedestrian improvements and amenities, consistent with adopted Engineering Standards and the St. Helena Bicycle Plan,” as well as policies CR3.1, CR3.3, and CR 3.6 under Sustainable Mobility Practices.

Should Councilmembers, City staff, or applicant team members have any questions about our request, please do not hesitate to reach out to me at (707) 258-6317 or [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration, Carlotta Sainato
Program Manager, Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 332 of 513 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION
952 SCHOOL STREET #316 NAPA CA 94559
(707) 681-5111 [email protected]

December 12, 2023
St. Helena City Council
Mayor Paul Dohring
Vice Mayor Eric Hall
Council Member Anna Chouteau
Council Member Lester Hardy
Council Member Billy Summers
Sent via email to: [email protected]

RE: December 12, 2023
Agenda

13.1. Antonio and Rita Castellucci have submitted a Pre-Application Review for a proposed a mixed-use commercial project that includes 75 hotel rooms, 10 residential units, a restaurant and bar, retail space, a café, a spa, a fitness center, a conference center and underground parking at the former Bank of America location at 1001 Adams Street in the Business, Professional and Office (BPO) zoning district. 203 - 302 Water Audit California submits its comment letter for the pre-application review of this proposed mixed-use commercial project. We ask that the Mayor and City Council note that prima facie, the City of St. Helena does not have enough water to service existing demands and the idea that a hotel can be built without an increase in water consumption is prima facie absurb.

The Public Trust
Water Audit California (“Water Audit”) is an advocate for the public trust. Through Government Code § 65800 et seq. the Legislature conveyed to the city the authority to adopt regulations and ordinances to promote the general welfare of the State’s residents.

The City remains subordinate to the control and direction of the senior levels of government. The state endows the highest priority on fish and wildlife protection and conservation. “The Legislature finds and declares that the protection and conservation of the Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 333 of 513 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter
Castellucci
December 12, 2023
2 fish and wildlife resources of the state are of utmost public interest.

Fish and wildlife are the property of the people, and provide a major contribution to the property of the state …” (Fish and Game Code § 1600) This statement is one of the foundations of Water Audit’s mission, both generally and herein. The City must consider the substantial potential public trust impacts of proposed projects.

The essential idea of the public trust doctrine is that the government holds and protects certain natural resources in trust for the public benefit. (See Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois (1892) 146 U.S. 387, 452, 456; National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 441; Berkeley v. Superior Court (1980) 26 Cal.3d 515, 521.) Public trust theory has its roots in Roman and common law. (United States v. 11.037 Acres of Land (N.D. Cal. 1988) 685 F. Supp. 214, 215.) Its principles underlie the entirety of the State of California. Upon its admission to the United States in 1850, California received the title to its tidelands, submerged lands, and lands underlying inland navigable waters as trustee for the benefit of the public. (People v. California Fish Co. (California Fish) (1913) 166 Cal. 576, 584; Carstens v. California Coastal Com. (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 277, 288.) The People of California did not surrender their public trust rights; the state holds land in its sovereign capacity in trust for public purposes. (California Fish, Ibid.) The courts have ruled that the public trust doctrine requires the state to administer as a trustee all public trust resources for current and future generations, precluding the state from alienating those resources into private ownership and requiring the state to protect the longterm preservation of those resources for the public benefit. (National Audubon, supra. 33 Cal.3d 419, 440-441; Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 238, 249-251.)
The public trust fulfills the basic elements of a trust: intent, purpose, and subject matter. (Estate of Gaines (1940) 15 Cal.2d 255, 266.) It has both beneficiaries, the people of the state, and trustees, the agencies of the state entrusted with public trust duties.

The beneficiaries of the public trust are the people of California, and it is to them that the trustee owes fiduciary duties. As the City of St. Helena is a legal subdivision of the state, it must deal with the trust property for the beneficiary’s benefit. No trustee can properly act for only some of the beneficiaries – the trustee must represent them all, taking into account any differing interests of the beneficiaries, or the trustee cannot properly represent any of them. (Bowles v. Superior Court (1955) 44 C2d 574.) This principle is in accord with the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

A public trust trustee "may not approve of destructive activities without giving due regard to the preservation of those [public trust] resources." (Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc. (“Bio Diversity”) (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1370, fn. 19, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 588.) [Emphasis added]
Common law imposes public trust considerations upon the City’s decisions and actions. (Biological Diversity, supra. 166 Cal.App.4th 1349; Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board (“ELF”) (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 844.) The courts have recognized the State’s responsibility to protect public trust uses whenever feasible. (See, Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 334 of 513 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter
Castellucci
December 12, 2023
3 e.g., National Audubon, supra. 33 Cal.3d 419, 435; California Trout, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 585, 631; California Trout, Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 187, 289.) The City of St. Helena, under Public Resources Code, section 6009.1, has an affirmative duty to administer the natural resources held by public trust solely in the interest of the people of California.

The public trust doctrine requires the State (i.e. City of St. Helena), as a trustee, to manage its public trust resources (including water) so as to derive the maximum benefit for its citizenry. Even if the water at issue has been put to beneficial use, it can be taken from one user in favor of another need or use. The public trust doctrine therefore means that no water rights in California are truly "vested" in the traditional sense of property rights.

Furthermore, there can be no vested rights in water use that harm the public trust.

Regardless of the nature of the water right in question, no water user in the State "owns" any water. Instead, a right to water grants the holder thereof only the right to use water, a "usufructuary right". The owner of "legal title" to all water is the State in its capacity as a trustee for the benefit of the public. Both riparian and appropriative rights are usufructuary only and confer no right of private ownership in the watercourse, which belongs to the State. (People v.

Shirokow (1980) 26 Cal.3d 301 at 307.)
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Water Audit California respectfully requests that the City Council consider the impacts of the proposed project on existing water consumption needs during the meeting this evening.

Respectfully,

William McKinnon
General Counsel
Water Audit California
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 335 of 513 ends

Page 336 of 513 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Planning
DATE: December 12, 2023
FROM: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: ULI Technical Advisory Panel Report Discussion and feedback

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Receive report and provide recommendations on items
from TAP report for City staff to prioritize for completion.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

There has been no prior Council action on this item.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Receive report and provide recommendations on priority
projects for implementation.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact from discussion. Future projects would have a fiscal impact analysis for consideration by City Council before any action.

BACKGROUND:

St. Helena is the jewel of the Napa Valley, but even before the pandemic, the City has lacked significant new private or public investment in its downtown core. As a result, the built environment downtown had degraded and the City has seen very little Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) growth since 2011 compared to neighboring cities.

While the City has prepared Economic Strategy Plans and some intensive prior revitalization studies including Renaissance St. Helena and Cultivate St. Helena, various factors, including the pandemic, resulted in these initiatives not moving forward.

While the local community will be the primary beneficiaries of any investment downtown, a revitalized downtown will also make our city more of a destination and will enable local businesses to thrive. The City is at an important crossroads and City needs to make some strategic decisions with a goal of seeking to create an attractive downtown environment through placemaking to invite future investment benefiting both residents and visitors alike.

After reviewing a Technical Advisory Report (TAP) that the Urban Land Institute Prepared for the Oxbow District in Napa, City staff was intrigued by the level of expertise that ULI brings to solving specific economic and redevelopment issues for cities and also the speed at which solutions and action plans are brought forth with a TAP. After meeting with the San Francisco ULI liaison and learning more about how ULI could assist St. Helena, the City engaged ULI to conduct a two-day TAP in March 2023.

What is ULI?
Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 337 of 513 ends

Urban Land Institute (ULI) is the oldest and largest network of cross-disciplinary real estate and land use experts in the world. Since 1947, ULI has harnessed the technical expertise of its members to help communities solve difficult land use, development, and redevelopment challenges. ULI has conducted over 650 Advisory Services Panels in 47 U.S. states, 12 countries, and 4 continents. Since 2006, ULI San Francisco (ULI SF) has
adapted this model to provide Technical Assistance Panels (TAPs) for use at the local level, assisting over 30 cities throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.

What is a TAP?
ULI SF assembles a multidisciplinary panel of experts that explore the project, interview stakeholders, and make recommendations. TAP Panelists consists of unpaid volunteers from the 2,300+ ULI members in the San Francisco District Council chosen specifically for each assignment. Depending on the issues being tackled, panel member expertise may be comprised of developers and owners, investors, designers, planners, engineers, market, and financial analysts, as well as members of the public sector. One strength of ULI SF’s Technical Assistance Panels lies in the cross-section of experts, who do not have a vested interest in the project, examining the issues from multiple angles and producing recommendations and/or an implementation strategy that is based on sound information, community realities, and best practices.

Day 1 of the TAP is a briefing presentation by the City to the TAP panel, followed by a tour and then a half day of stakeholder interviews. The remainder of the day is for the TAP panel to review the feedback received and begin forming their recommendations.

Day 2 of the TAP is a continuation of the panel distilling their recommendations and creating a slide deck to present to the City and stakeholders in the afternoon prior to the conclusion of the event.

A total of 23 stakeholders from St. Helena were interviewed representing elected officials, staff, property owners, business owners, organizations, developers, real estate professionals and local leaders (list can be viewed in Appendix to the TAP report).

At the conclusion of the two day TAP, the panel continued working collaboratively in the weeks ahead to formulate the report for City staff to review prior to finalizing the report.

What were the questions the City asked ULI to help with? The City desired the expertise of the ULI panel to provide candid feedback regarding how St. Helena could better develop our unique identity in Napa Valley and attract more economic investment. This overarching goal helped formulate the questions below:

Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 338 of 513 ends

1. What are downtown St. Helena’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis that should be incorporated into placemaking?

2. What should St. Helena’s distinctive brand be? How should St. Helena differentiate itself as a distinctive destination city in the wine country region?

3. How can the placemaking effort interact with the city’s current plan and land use regulations?

Key Recommendations from ULI report
In June 2023 the City received the Final TAP report (Attachment 1). The City issued a press release and posted the report on the City website in addition to sending to each stakeholder that participated in the TAP interviews. The City has received generally positive feedback from local organizations that have reviewed it, including ATSC and the Chamber. Some of the key areas of recommendations noted in the TAP report include:
 Any action is better than inaction
 Downtown St. Helena is MORE than Main Street, look to enhance, remake, reimagine-opportunities include alleys, Money Way, Railroad Avenue and Oak Avenue
 If going to invest in re-doing Main Street sidewalks, maximize potential to really create wider sidewalks to allow both outdoor dining and adequate walking path for pedestrians-accomplished by removing the median lane on SR 29 between Adams and Spring Street.
 Close Hunt Avenue to make pedestrian plaza (part of Specific Plan study area)  Define gateways into downtown (part of Specific Plan scope)  City has many sites ripe for redevelopment, that can bring in both housing and needed hotels (part of Specific Plan scope and Surplus Lands Act process)  Build on the Culinary Institute of America icon, create space for an incubator kitchen
 Refresh Lyman Park
 Focus now on short term quick wins such as adding twinkle lights, uplighting, signage, and parklets
 Instead of a Downtown Master Plan consider a Specific Plan paired with an EIR to streamline development process and drive new investment  Invest in and grow City team
Accomplishments Post the March TAP
 Mural Permit Program launched
 Public Art Program approved by City Council
 Beautification of Lyman Park
Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 339 of 513 ends

 Additional staff added to support economic development (Assistant to City Manager positions)
 Downtown Specific Plan funded and consultant will begin process in 2024  Pre-application received for new hotel/mixed use project on Bank of America site Policy Discussion Items for City Council-Bigger Wins
Main Street improvements between Adams and Spring Street Options  ULI Option (Attachment 2): The Plan contemplates the closure of Hunt Ave at SR 29 to create a pedestrian plaza and removal of the median turn lane between Adams Street and Spring Street that would allow 18 foot wide space for dining and pedestrians. Should City staff pause on the current engineering effort that keeps the sidewalks the same width and have the Downtown Specific Plan study the ULI option? OR
 Cultivate St. Helena Option (Attachment 3): Continue development of streetscape per Cultivate Our Main Street Plan, keeping sidewalks current width (maximum 11 feet) and continue with the development of bid documents for a "shovel ready" project pending project funding availability (see attachment) Enhanced Sidewalks/Parklets: Should City staff utilize the Downtown Specific Plan to facilitate public engagement related to enhanced sidewalks/parklets? Potential "interim" use of post-demolished City Hall site (1480 Main Street): Could include public gathering space with tables, shade structure(s) and also temporary food and beverage vendors?
Policy Discussion Items for City Council
Temporary closures and activations of Hunt Avenue: In the next 12 months to continue to test suitability as a permanent pedestrian plaza in the heart of downtown (will be studied in Specific Plan)
Lighting the alleys downtown : Staff looking to get quotes from lighting contractors (see Attachment 4 with location of alleys that includes both public and privately owned) Temporary activations of Money Way and Railroad Avenue: This could include temporary road closures allowing for downtown festival/events, pop up uses.

Placemaking: Adding a Gratitude chalk board or a "St. Helena Is..." chalk board.

Locations TBD, should we explore feasibility of adding this annually to Hunt Avenue space as part of Wine Barrel tree?
Staff also encourages other ideas from report for discussion by City Council ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Not a CEQA project.

Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 340 of 513 ends

DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1_ULI TAP Report_St Helena_FINAL
Attachment 2-Main Street (between Adam and Spring) Proposed Attachment 3-Cultivate St. Helena Streetscape 2020-01-13 Round 3 Attachment 4-Downtown Alleys Aerial2
Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 341 of 513 ends

St. Helena, California
March 13-14, 2023
Technical Assistance Panel
Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 342 of 513 ends

Page 343 of 513 ends

Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 344 of 513 ends

Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 345 of 513 ends

Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 346 of 513 ends

ULI SF TAP I City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 347 of 513 ends

Page 348 of 513 ends

1. What are downtown St. Helena’s strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT
analysis) that should be incorporated into
placemaking?

2. What should St. Helena’s distinctive brand be?
How should St. Helena differentiate itself as a
distinctive destination city in the wine country
region?

3. How can the placemaking effort interact with the
city’s current plan and land use regulations?

Image of Main Street today C
Panelist sketch of a reimagined Main Street.

Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 349 of 513 ends

Helena’s unique culture and historic roots with the rest of the world. See ‘Identity’ for more (page 18).

Helena’s vision setting for the future.

See ‘Placemaking’ for more (page 22).

KEY TAKEAWAY: More than just Main Street
• Place the existing sidewalk improvement project
on hold and reimagine Main Street.

Allocate more space to pedestrians.

Explore the implementation of a flexible zone
in the parking lane.

Revisit the Vine Trail bike route to potentially
go down Main Street.
• Think beyond Main Street, and consider the entire
downtown network of streets.

Reconsider the closure and pedestrianization
of Hunt Avenue.

New boutique hotels
Mixed use and affordable housing
Creative pop-up partnerships
Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 350 of 513 ends

Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 351 of 513 ends

Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 352 of 513 ends

Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 353 of 513 ends

This sentiment, born of residents’ opposition, has been reflected in the city’s policies and priorities to date.

Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 354 of 513 ends

Numerous planning efforts over the past several years,
as well as those currently underway, have attempted to
address these challenges.

Agenda Item #13.2.

Page 355 of 513 ends

St. Helena City CouncilDecember 12, 2023

St. Helena City Council
December 12, 2023