City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-189
• 601 Fulton lane: The completed project constructed a single-family residence, ADU, and barn on a property with an existing vineyard
The site inventory identified nonvacant residentially zoned sites with similar conditions to trends detailed above (nonvacant sites with existing, single-family residences). The projects listed above were infill sites that redeveloped parcels with existing single family residences with multi-family developments and affordable housing. These projects were located on parcels zoned Medium and High Density Residential. The conditions and characteristics of these projects are similar to Sites 6, 7, and 9 which each have one existing single-family residence and are zoned Median and High Density Residential.
The 632 McCorkle Avenue project had a density of 14.9 units per acre which is 57 percent of the maximum allowed density of the site, the 684 McCorkle Avenue project had a density of 14.7 units per acre which is 56 percent of the maximum allowed density, and the 601 Fulton Lane project had a density of 17.1 units per acre which is 107 percent of the maximum allowed density. The recent redevelopment projects have an average density of 15.5 units per acre, which equates to an average of 73 percent of the maximum allowed density on each site. The site inventory assumes a capacity of approximately 80 percent of the maximum allowed density on each site. This is slightly higher than the average density of recently constructed and approved projects.
However, the sites identified in the inventory are larger than the recent redevelopment projects listed above which allows for more efficient layout and greater capacity for development. In addition, two of the three recently redeveloped sites were narrow parcels where the parcel size and shape limited the configuration and available area for housing development on-site.
Other jurisdictions in the region have also seen redevelopment of nonvacant, residentially zoned parcels for housing development as well. Additional redevelopment projects on nonvacant, residentially zoned parcels in the region include the following:
• City of Calistoga – 2008 Grant Street: The approved project includes demolition of an existing residential structure, a three-sided wooden garage, and a large, fire-damaged shed on a 5.84-acre parcel and construction of 15 single-family homes
• City of Calistoga – Yellow Rose Ranch: The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing single-family residence, barn, and four accessory buildings and construction of 46 single-family homes, 33 attached ADUs, and 12 detached ADUs
• City of Napa - Browns Valley Subdivision: The proposed project includes the demolition of a singlefamily residence, barn, and several outbuildings and construction of 11 single-family homes • City of Napa – Old Sonoma Road Mixed Use: The proposed project includes the demolition of nine existing non-historic buildings and rehabilitation of three existing historic buildings into two townhome clusters, six new condominium structures, eight single-family homes, and commercial space. The project proposes a total of between 155 and 162 housing units.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-190
• City of Napa – Redwood Grove Housing: The proposed project includes the removal of an existing single-family residence and construction of a two-story, 34-unit, multi-family, 100 percent affordable housing development.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-191
Site 4: 905 Main Street (APN 009-180-008)
Table 48 Site 4 Summary
Current Use Vacant
Parcel Size 0.27 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Mixed-Use
Existing Zoning Service Commercial
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed-Use
Allowed Density 12 to 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 5 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 4 Above Moderate Income units
Site 4 is a 0.27-acre property located at 905 Main Street. The property is a vacant site in a location prime for development along Main Street. The property owner has expressed interest in development of the site with housing and community members have expressed support for this use. A zoning change is proposed to change the zoning designation from Service Commercial to Mixed-Use, which would bring the property into conformance with the existing General Plan land use designation and incentivize owner redevelopment of the site due to the new allowed on-site uses. In addition, mixed-use development incentives anticipated under Program H-P, such as streamlined design review and fee waivers, would further encourage development of housing on the site. The Mixed-Use land use designation is a new designation introduced in the City’s recent 2040 General Plan Update. The City is currently in the process of updating the Zoning Ordinance to include a Mixed-Use zone consistent with the General Plan and anticipates adopting these changes in Fall of 2023.
Because the Mixed-Use zone has not yet been adopted in the Zoning Ordinance, there are no recent development trends in the city for sites zoned Mixed-Use. According to the City of Napa’s Housing Element Update, two recent mixed-use projects in the city had an average of 92 percent of the maximum allowed Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-192
density of the sites. Napa’s sites inventory assumed a realistic density of 80 percent of the maximum allowed density of each site based on the density of recent mixed-use developments, which averaged 83 percent of the maximum allowed density.55 There is potential that Site 4 could be developed with 100 percent commercial uses. However, the inventory only includes one site with a Mixed Use land use and only a total of four abovemoderate housing units. In addition, the property owner has expressed to the City that they are interested in developing housing on the site. The site is vacant, and the entire 0.27-acre site is able to be developed. Based on 80 percent of the maximum allowed density under Mixed-Use, four above-moderate income units are feasible.
55 City of Napa. 2022. Housing Element Update.
file:///C:/Users/lsegal/Downloads/Napa%20Housing%20Element%20Rev%2002%2020230216.pdf Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-193
Site 5: Main Street between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane (APN 009-660-005) Table 49 Site 5 Summary
Current Use Vacant
Parcel Size 1.8 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Service Commercial
Existing Zoning Service Commercial
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 45 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 45 Lower Income units
Site 5 is a 1.8-acre property located on Main Street between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane. The property is a vacant site in a location prime for development along Main Street. The site is privately owned currently but a local affordable housing non-profit has secured an exclusive option to purchase the property to develop affordable housing, consistent with an approved development agreement for the Farmstead Hotel. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone is proposed to change the land use and zoning designation from Service Commercial to High Density Residential to allow for affordable housing development. The affordable housing project is in the preliminary site design phase which is pending pursuant to adoption of the Housing Element Update and subsequent rezoning of the property to accommodate multi-family housing.
The entire 1.8-acre site is vacant and able to be developed. Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, a total of 45 housing units would be permitted. The affordable housing non-profit organization that owns the site intends to develop a housing project affordable to households earning between 30 percent and 60 percent of the AMI (very low- and low-income). A conceptual site plan was analyzed which determined Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-194
four-story development along Fountain Court and three-stories along Main Street with structured parking could yield approximately 45 units and all required parking spaces. The inventory assumes 45 units. While this is greater than 80 percent of the maximum allowable density of the site, it is consistent with the non-profit’s project plans and less than the maximum density of the project site (46 units).
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-195
Site 6: 709 McCorkle Avenue (APN 009-100-031)
Table 50 Site 6 Summary
Current Use Single Family Residences
Parcel Size 0.9 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Medium Density Residential Allowed Density 14 units/acre
Site Capacity 5 units
Assumed Capacity and Income Category 4 Above Moderate Income units Site 6 is composed of a 0.9-acre property located at 709 McCorkle Avenue. The property is underutilized with one existing single family residence and a large undeveloped space. The site is considered underutilized based on the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available.
The property owner along with community members and local nonprofit groups expressed interest in developing more housing on the site. The property owner inquired with the City regarding the possibility of subdividing the property pursuant to SB9, which would allow the lot to be split into two lots with development of up to two units on each lot. The current land use and zoning designation is Medium Density Residential and no changes to land use or zoning are proposed. The site is currently underutilized and does not meet the maximum density allowed under the Medium Density Residential Zone (16 units/acre) with a current density of 1 unit per acre. The site currently has 1 unit, which is approximately 7 percent of the total allowed capacity. The Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-196
existing building lot coverage is about seven percent of the site, allowing for an additional 38 percent coverage for new structures.
The site is composed of a single family lot which could accommodate 14 units under current land use regulations. Due to the existing residence on the site, the inventory conservatively assumed additional units would be added pursuant to SB 9. Each lot can be split into two lots with development of up to 2 units on each lot, for a total of 4 above moderate units (a net increase of 3 units). In addition, each lot could develop ADUs for a total net capacity of 5 units. However, a total of 4 above moderate income units were assumed, given the property owner’s development interests.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-197
Site 7: 821 Pope Street (APN 009-503-001)
Table 51 Site 7 Summary
Current Use Single Family Residence
Parcel Size 1.0 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use High Density Residential Existing Zoning High Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 26 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 10 Lower Income and 10 Moderate Income units
Site 7 is a 1.0-acre property located at 821 Pope Street. The site is underutilized with one existing single-family residence and large undeveloped areas on-site. The site is considered underutilized based on the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available.
Land use designations and existing development surrounding the site consist of multi-family housing. The current land use and zoning designation is High Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed.
This site mirrors the condition of properties that were recently redeveloped with multi-family housing in the city.
Similar to the 632 McCorkle Avenue, 684 McCorkle Avenue, and 963 Pope Street projects, this site contains existing single family residences on a large parcel but is underutilized as it is located on a High Density Residential zone
The entire 1.0-acre site is able to be redeveloped. Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, development of 26 units would be permitted. However, a total of 20 units, 10 lower income units and 10 Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-198
moderate income units, is assumed in order to accommodate off-street parking capacity. The site is currently underutilized and does not meet the minimum density of the High Density Residential Zone (16.1 units/acre) with a current density of 1 unit per acre. The site currently has 1 unit, which is approximately 4 percent of the total allowed capacity. The existing building lot coverage is about 16 percent of the site, allowing for an additional 29 percent coverage for new structures or up to 45 percent if the site is redeveloped.
This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and is considered non-vacant, therefore requiring byright approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-199
Site 8: 882 and 886 College Avenue (APN 009-070-043, -044, -045) Table 52 Site 8 Summary
Current Use Vacant
Parcel Size 1.5 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Public/Quasi-Public
Existing Zoning A-20 (Agriculture)
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 39 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 15 Lower Income and 15 Moderate Income units
Site 8 is composed of three adjacent properties that total 1.5 acres located at 882 and 886 College Avenue. All three properties are vacant and are owned by a single property owner who has expressed interest in residential development on these properties. The site is adjacent to areas with existing multi-family development. A General Plan Amendment and zoning change is proposed to change the land use and zoning designation from Public/Quasi-Public and Agriculture to High Density Residential.
The entire 1.5-acre site is able to be redeveloped. Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, 39 units would be permitted. However, a total of 30 units, 15 lower-income units and 15 moderate income units, is assumed in order to accommodate off-street parking capacity. Future development of the site would not be dependent upon lot consolidation as all three parcels are under the same ownership. Furthermore, Program H-ZZ would incentivize lot consolidation at the time the property is developed.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-200
Site 9: 1447 and 1515 Spring Street (APN 009-590-003, -010) Table 53 Site 9 Summary
Current Use Single Family Residences
Parcel Size 2.4 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use High Density Residential Existing Zoning High Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 62 units
Income Category 24 Lower Income and 24 Above Moderate Income units Site 9 is composed of two adjacent properties that total 2.4 acres located at 1447 and 151 Spring Street. Both properties are underutilized with one existing single-family residence and large undeveloped areas on each parcel. The overall site is considered underutilized based on the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available. This site mirrors the condition of properties that were recently redeveloped with multifamily housing in the city. Similar to the 632 McCorkle Avenue, 684 McCorkle Avenue, and 963 Pope Street projects, this site contains existing single family residences on large parcels but is underutilized as it is located on a High Density Residential zone. The site is surrounded by single- and multi-family development and sites zoned High Density Residential, similar to the 632 McCorkle Avenue and 684 McCorkle Avenue projects. The current land use and zoning designation is High Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed.
The entire 2.4-acre site is able to be redeveloped. Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, 62 units would be permitted. However, a total of 48 units, 24 lower income units and 24 above moderate income units, is assumed in order to accommodate site circulation improvements and adequate off-street parking Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-201
capacity. The site is currently underutilized and does not meet the minimum density of the High Density Residential Zone (16.1 units/acre) with a current density of 0.83 units/acre. The site has two existing housing units, which equals approximately three percent of the total allowed capacity of the site (62 units). The existing building lot coverage is approximately eight percent and the maximum allowed lot coverage is 45 percent.
Future development of the site would not be dependent upon lot consolidation as all three parcels are under the same ownership. Furthermore, Program H-ZZ would incentivize lot consolidation at the time the property is developed.
This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, therefore requiring by-right approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-202
Site 10: Spring Street between Hudson Avenue & Valley View Street (APN 009-441-023) Table 54 Site 10 Summary
Current Use Vineyard
Parcel Size 4.4 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 114 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 44 Lower Income and 44 Moderate Income units
Site 10 is a 4.4-acre parcel located on Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street. Recent property owner interest in residential development of the site indicates opportunity for housing. Additionally, Focus Group meetings showed interest in High Density Residential uses on this residentially zoned parcel in the form of town homes, which is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The site is considered underutilized as it has a residential land use designation but is currently used as vineyards. As previously discussed, the City has seen recent development of housing on properties with existing vineyards.
Site 10 has greater development potential than the recently developed vineyard parcels since it is located on a residentially zoned parcel, while the 500 Mills Lane and 601 Fulton Lane projects were located on parcels with a land use and zoning designation of Agriculture and therefore are only allowed to develop one housing unit and one ADU per parcel. A General Plan Amendment and zoning change is proposed to change the zoning from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-203
The entire 4.4-acre site is able to be redeveloped. Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, 114 units would be permitted. However, a total of 88 units, 44 lower income units and 44 moderate income units, is assumed in order to accommodate adequate off-street parking capacity. The site is currently underutilized and does not meet the maximum density allowed under the Medium Density Residential Zone (16 units/acre) or the minimum density allowed under the proposed land use change to High Density Residential (16.1 units/acre) with a current density of 0 units per acre. The site currently has no on-site development and would be allowed 45 percent lot coverage, or approximately 86,000 square feet of building footprints.
This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and is considered non-vacant, therefore requiring byright approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-204
Site 11: 1637 Spring Street (APN 009-600-018)
Table 55 Site 11 Summary
Current Use 8 Detached Residential Housing Units
Parcel Size 1.1 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning High Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 28 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 8 Additional Lower Income units
Site 11 is a 1.1-acre parcel located at 1637 Spring Street. Recent property owner interest in adding housing units on-site indicates there is opportunity to develop additional housing. The property owner emailed City Staff on March 7, 2022, interested in the development of additional housing units on the property . The property owner stated a desire to double the number of housing units on the site and expressed support for changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, to match the current zoning.
Further, correspondence with the property owner confirmed they are interested in including the site in the site inventory. The land use designation of the site is currently Medium Density Residential, changed from High Density Residential during the latest General Plan Update in 2019. However, the site is still zoned High Density Residential and is adjacent to other parcels zoned High Density Residential. A General Plan Amendment is proposed to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, in conformance with the current zoning designation.
Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, a total of 28 units would be permitted. With the existing 8 units and current on-site structures, the site is underutilized based on density, FAR, and lot coverage.
Based on discussions with the property-owner and existing site layout, approximately 8 additional units could Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-205
be accommodated on-site. Therefore, the inventory assumed 8 lower income units, resulting in 16 units total on-site, based on the property owner’s development interests. The site is underutilized and currently does not meet the minimum density of the High Density Residential Zone (16.1 units/acre) with a current density of 7.3 units/acre. The site has 8 existing housing units, which equals approximately 29 percent of the total allowed capacity of the site (28 units). The existing building lot coverage is approximately 30 percent and the maximum allowed lot coverage is 45 percent.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-206
Site 12: 620 McCorkle Avenue (APN 009-502-003)
Table 56 Site 12 Summary
Current Use Single Family Residence
Parcel Size 0.76 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Medium Density Residential Allowed Density 5.1 to 16 units/acre
Site Capacity 12 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 3 Additional Above Moderate Income units
Site 12 is a 0.76-acre parcel located at 620 McCorkle Avenue. The site is considered underutilized as it is zoned medium density residential but is currently developed with a single family residence. The site is considered underutilized based on the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available. The site is surrounded by single- and multi-family development and properties zoned Medium and High Density Residential. In addition, community feedback from public meetings and public comment letters have shown the site is a strategic location for housing and the community is interested in including this site in the site inventory. The current land use and zoning designation is Medium Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed. This site also is adjacent to recently redeveloped sites at 632 McCorkle Avenue and 684 McCorkle Avenue, which removed an existing single-family residence with multi-family units.
The entire site could accommodate approximately 12 units based on allowed density alone. However, three additional above-moderate income units are assumed in order to accommodate adequate off-street parking capacity and existing residential uses. Therefore, the inventory assumed three additional above moderate income units, resulting in four units total onsite. The site is currently underutilized and does not meet the Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-207
minimum or maximum density allowed under the Medium Density Residential Zone (5.1 and 16 units/acre) with a current density of 1.3 units per acre. The site currently has 1 unit, which is approximately 8 percent of the total allowed capacity. The existing building lot coverage is about 25 percent of the site, allowing for an additional 20 percent coverage for new structures or 45 percent if the site is redeveloped similar to adjacent parcels.
Summary of Site Inventory
In combination with the City’s pending projects and ADU development trends, the site inventory provides adequate sites to meet the City’s RHNA allocation and buffer requirements. Between these three methods, the city can accommodate a total of 472 housing units, including 207 lower-income, 70 moderate-income, and 195 above moderate-income units. Table 57 shows a summary of the number of housing units accommodated by pending projects, ADU trends, and the site inventory.
Table 57 Summary of Housing Units
Lower Income
Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income Total
Pending Projects 4 1 88 93
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Site Inventory
Site 1 (1480 Main St.) 6 0 0 6
Site 2 (1572 Railroad Ave.) 20 0 0 20
Site 3 (Adams St.) 31 0 0 31
Site 4 (905 Main St.) 0 0 4 4
Site 5 (Main St. btw Mills Ln. and
Dowdell Ln.) 45 0 0 45
Site 6 (709 McCorkle Ave.) 0 0 4 4
Site 7 (821 Pope St.) 10 10 0 20
Site 8 (882 and 886 College Ave.) 15 15 0 30
Site 9 (1447 and 1515 Spring St.) 24 0 24 48
Site 10 (Spring St. btw Hudson Ave.
And Valley View St.) 44 44 0 88
Site 11 (1637 Spring St.) 8 0 0 8
Site 12 (620 McCorkle Ave.) 0 0 3 3
Total 207 70 195 472
St. Helena RHNA plus 20% Buffer 192 31 79 302
Surplus 15 39 116 170
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-208
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-209
Figure 49 Residential Site Inventory Map
Figure 49 Residential Site Inventory Map
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-210
Table 58 Vacant and Nonvacant Sites
Site Address APN Developable
Acres Existing Zoning Rezone Proposed
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
Used in Previous
HE? Nonvacant CityOwned
Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Site 1 (1480 Main St.) 009-211-016 0.90 Public/Quasi-Public Yes Mixed-Use 12 20 No Nonvacant Yes 6 0 0 6 Site 2 (1572 Railroad Ave.) 009-193-002 0.93 Business and Professional Office
Yes High Density
Residential
16.1 26 No Nonvacant Yes 20 0 0 20
Site 3 (Adams St.) 009-150-006 5.6 Central Business Yes High Density Residential
16.1 26 Yes (Moderate
Income and Above)
Vacant Yes 31 0 0 31
Site 4 (905 Main St.) 009-180-008 0.27 Service Commercial Yes Mixed-Use 12 20 Yes (Moderate Income and Above)
Vacant No 0 0 4 4
Site 5 (Main St. btw Mills Ln. and
Dowdell Ln.)
009-660-005 1.8 Service Commercial Yes High Density
Residential
16.1 26 No Vacant No 45 0 0 45
Site 6 (709 McCorkle Ave.) 009-100-032 0.9 Medium Density Residential
No Medium Density
Residential
5.1 16 No Nonvacant No 0 0 4 4
Site 7 (821 Pope St.) 009-503-001 1.0 High Density
Residential
No High Density
Residential
16.1 26 Yes (Lower Income) Nonvacant No 10 10 0 20
Site 8 (882 and 886 College Ave.) 009-070-043, 009-070- 044, 009-070-045
1.5 Agriculture Yes High Density
Residential
16.1 26 No Vacant No 15 15 0 30
Site 9 (1447 and 1515 Spring St.) 009-590-010, 009-590- 003
2.4 High Density
Residential
No High Density
Residential
16.1 26 Yes (Lower Income) Nonvacant No 24 0 24 48
Site 10 (Spring St. btw Hudson
Ave. And Valley View St.)
009-441-023 4.4 Medium Density
Residential
Yes High Density
Residential
16.1 26 Yes (Moderate
Income and Above)
Vacant No 44 44 0 88
Site 11 (1637 Spring St.) 009-600-018 1.1 High Density
Residential
No High Density
Residential
16.1 26 No Nonvacant No 8 0 0 8
Site 12: 620 McCorkle 009-502-003 0.76 Medium Density
Residential
No Medium Density
Residential
5.1 16 No Nonvacant No 0 0 3 3
Total 203 69 36 308
Lower Income
Capacity
Lower Income RHNA with 20 percent buffer: 192
Pending and Approved Projects (lower income) 4
Existing HDR capacity: Site 7 10
Existing HDR capacity: Site 9 24
Existing HDR capacity: Site 11 8
Remaining lower income shortfall 146
Sites with proposed rezone to HDR (Sites 2, 3, 5, 8, 10) 156 Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-211
Availability of Infrastructure and Services
The City of St. Helena is dedicated to improving existing and new infrastructure and facilities to support existing and future development. The City’s annual budget devotes funds towards the Public Works Department which provides design, construction, maintenance, and operation of public facilities and infrastructure within the city.
Public Works is responsible for infrastructure including streets, storm drains, parks, water treatment, water distribution, wastewater collection, and wastewater treatment. Environmental compliance services provided by Public Works also include storm water pollution prevention, sustainability, protection of public trees and floodplain administration, response to infrastructure and weather emergencies. The city’s existing infrastructure system may require minor upgrades to address age and condition-related issues. New construction would be located in areas served by existing infrastructure.
The Integrated Urban Master Plan analyzed future infrastructure and water supply capacity accounting for planned development within the city, including the Hunter Subdivision project, and estimated buildout proposed under the 2040 General Plan, which would be about 7,400 residents by the year 2040. The City’s RHNA plans for the addition of a total of 256 housing units within the planning period. Currently the city has a population of approximately 6,073. Therefore, the additional 256 units would not exceed buildout assumed in the Master Plan.
Wastewater System
The City’s Integrated Utility Master Plan was adopted in 2021 and serves as the guiding document for planning and implementing sewer system improvements through the year 2040. The plan is consistent with the population, land use, employment, and housing projections presented in the 2040 General Plan. The City also has a Sewer System Management Plan that was developed in 2006 and last updated in April 2016. The City’s sewer system service area consists of the City limits and includes approximately 24 miles of active gravity sewer pipelines, 0.4 miles of force mains, and two lift stations that convey flow to the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Improvements to the Wastewater Treatment Plant began in 2022 to adhere to stricter environmental requirements and are expected to be completed in 2023.
A capacity analysis of the existing wastewater collection system showed a storm event would result in multiple pipeline capacity deficiencies and sanitary sewer overflows at several locations with the existing system.
Wastewater collection systems improvement projects proposed by the Utility Master Plan included gravity main improvements with pipeline replacement and lift station improvements. These improvements would be constructed based on prioritization within the Master Plan and developed as a Capital Improvement Project.
The improvements would be financed through City budgeting and collection of project impact fees. As discussed under the Government Constraints section, impact fees in the city do not represent a constraint to housing.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-212
Potable Water System
The City’s Integrated Utility Master Plan serves as the guiding document for planning and implementing water system improvements through the year 2040, consistent with growth under the 2040 General Plan. Previously, the City utilized the Water Master Plan, developed in 2006, to identify infrastructure need to the year 2020. The City’s water system service area extends beyond the City limits to unincorporated areas in the Meadowood Napa Valley Resort/Neighborhood area and area between Chaix Lane and Zinfandel Lane along Main Street.
There are three main water supply sources: Bell Canyon Reservoir, Stonebridge wells, and an interconnection with the City of Napa. The City’s water system consists of approximately 47 miles of water distribution pipelines.
A capacity analysis of the existing water distribution system showed there is one pump station, the Holmes pump station, that does not have sufficient firm pumping capacity to meet maximum daily demand. Evaluation of the existing treated water storage system capacity found one area that does not have adequate capacity to meet peak hour demand, fire flow storage, and emergency storage. Improvement projects proposed by the Utility Master Plan to prevent system failures caused by leaks, fails, and main breaks include rehabilitation and replacement of water main and transmission lines, which would enable the City to meet potable water demands. The potable water improvements would be constructed based on prioritization within the Master Plan and developed as a Capital Improvement Project. The improvements would be financed through City budgeting and collection of project impact fees. As discussed under the Government Constraints section, impact fees in the city do not represent a constraint to housing.
Storm Water System and Drainage System
The City’s Integrated Utility Master Plan guides planning and implementing the storm drainage system improvements through the year 2040 with growth projections consistent with the 2040 General Plan.
Previously, the Storm Drainage Master Plan, developed in 2000, served as the City’s guide to analyze the existing storm drain system and plan for implementation of improvements. The City’s storm drainage collection system service area consists of the city limits and includes street drainage, inlets, gravity pipelines, open channels, one storm water detention basin, and 33 outfalls that discharge in Sulphur Springs Creek, York Creek, or Napa River.
Evaluation of existing storm drainage capacity showed there would be multiple areas of flooding throughout the system in the event of a 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year storm. Improvement projects proposed by the Utility Master Plan to mitigate storm water system capacity issues include implementing an annual storm drain rehabilitation and replacement program with the assumption that approximately 1.25 percent of the system would be replaced per year until 2040. Storm water infrastructure upgrades would be constructed based on prioritization within the Master Plan and developed as a Capital Improvement Project. The improvements would be financed through City budgeting and collection of project impact fees. As discussed under the Government Constraints section, impact fees in the city do not represent a constraint to housing.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-213
Dry Utilities
PG&E is responsible for supplying electricity and natural gas to the City and surrounding areas. Other dry utilities such as telephone and data services and cable television are serviced by contracted providers within the city, including Xfinity and AT&T.
Circulation System
The City’s Circulation Element, updated in 2019 along with the General Plan, identifies the principal components of the City’s circulation system and issues related to parking, public transit, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The Circulation Element also includes standards and guiding principles for implementing transportation improvements.
The City’s street network is largely grid based with some streets east of State Route 29 that are not fully connected to the network. State Route 29 (Main Street) is the main street used for traveling north-south throughout the city and is the main route for vehicles traveling between Lake County, northern Sonoma County, and the City of Napa and other destinations further south. It runs northwest to southeast through the city and divides the city in two. Congestion along State Route 29 is a major issue within the city and pushes traffic onto local city streets. Much of the traffic congestion seen in the city is caused by tourists traveling throughout the region. The primary transit option in the city is the Vine bus service, however ridership is low with only 0.9 percent of St. Helena residents commuting via transit. Future improvements to the City’s transportation network include improvements aimed at reducing congestion along State Route 29 and enhancing alternative modes of travel, including the addition of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Environmental Constraints
In 2019, the City certified a FEIR with the 2040 General Plan Update that analyzed all potential environmental impacts associated with the population and development growth proposed under the plan. City Council also adopted CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations identifying public benefits that override the significant and unavoidable impacts of the General Plan, including agricultural preservation, a balanced mix of land uses and sustainable land use pattern, creation of construction jobs, managing effects of regional traffic, and a shift to a multi-modal circulation system. Environmental clearance for future development projects may tier from the General Plan FEIR, thereby expediting the approval process. Mitigation measures set forth in the FEIR include measures to minimize impacts associated with potential flooding, and other environmental constraints.
There are no known conditions that would preclude any of the selected sites from being developed within the planning period. Sites 4 and 7 are located in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard zone, Zone X, an area of moderate- to low-risk. Development within Zone X would not preclude the properties from development, as future development would be subject to development standards contained within the Saint Helena Municipal Code, which incorporates FEMA standards for construction in flood hazard zones, as well as relevant policies within the City’s General Plan which regulate development in flood risk areas. In Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-214
addition, future development would comply with applicable mitigation measures within the 2040 General Plan EIR, including HYDRO-1 which ensures that no development will impede waters in the floodway, raises base flood levels, or expose housing to undue risk from flooding. The remaining sites are not located within a FEMA flood zone. None of the sites are located within a state of local fire hazard severity zone.
References
Cal Fire. 2008. Draft Fire Hazar5d Severity Zones in LRA, Napa County. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6729/fhszl06_1_map28.pdf Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2022. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=1480%20Main%20Street#searchresultsanchor St. Helena, City of. Integrated Utility Master Plan. St. Helena, CA. April 2021. https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/2491/cosh_utility _master_plan_final_draft.pdf
St. Helena, City of. General Plan Update 2040. St. Helena, CA. June 2019. https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3505/final_ plan_compiled.pdf
Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. 2015. Feasibility Analysis and Comparison of Sties for New Affordable Housing Development Final Report. Ventura, CA. September 2015.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Public Review Draft Needs Assessment | June 2022
3.Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH)
Insert Cover over this page. Do not alter any Heading 1s underneath the covers.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-1
AFFH Contents
1. Introduction and Overview .......................................................................................A-5
1.1 Approach to Analysis.........................................................................................................................................................A-5
1.2 Fair Housing Methodology.................................................................................................................................................A-6
2. Summary of Fair Housing Issues ...............................................................................A-9
2.1 Regional Trends .................................................................................................................................................................A-9
2.2 Local Trends.......................................................................................................................................................................A-9
2.3 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity................................................................................................................................A-10
3. Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends..................................................A-14
3.1 Race and Ethnicity ...........................................................................................................................................................A-14
3.2 Persons with Disabilities..................................................................................................................................................A-15
3.3 Familial Status .................................................................................................................................................................A-25
3.4 Household Income ...........................................................................................................................................................A-37
3.5 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ....................................................................................................A-45
3.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities..............................................................................................................................A-52
3.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs .....................................................................................................................................A-74
4. Local Area of Knowledge ........................................................................................A-99
4.1 Stakeholder Input.............................................................................................................................................................A-99
5. Sites Inventory Analysis ........................................................................................A-102
5.1 Opportunity Areas..........................................................................................................................................................A-102
5.2 Improved Conditions......................................................................................................................................................A-103
6. Contributing Factors .............................................................................................A-107 Tables
Table 1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps..............................................................................................A-8 Table 2 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Napa County ...............................................................................................A-11 Table 3 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (Napa County)...................................................................................................A-15 Table 4 Household Type and Tenure (Napa County)...........................................................................................................A-25 Table 5 Household Type and Tenure (St. Helena) ...............................................................................................................A-27 Table 6 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (St. Helena) .........................................................................A-27 Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-2
Table 7 Housing Cost Burden of Lower-Income Households (2014-2018)..........................................................................A-85 Table 8 Substandard Housing Units (2019) ........................................................................................................................A-89 Table 9 Overcrowding by Tenure........................................................................................................................................A-91 Table 10 Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues ....................................................................................................A-107 Figures
Figure 1 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Napa County) .........................................................................................A-17 Figure 2 Percent of Total Non-White Population (St. Helena)..............................................................................................A-18 Figure 3 Predominant Populations (St. Helena) ...................................................................................................................A-19 Figure 4 Percent of Population with a Disability (Napa County)..........................................................................................A-20 Figure 5 Disability by Type (St. Helena) ...............................................................................................................................A-21 Figure 6 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (St. Helena) ....................................................................A-23 Figure 7 Children in Married-Couple Households (Napa County) ........................................................................................A-29 Figure 8 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Napa County).........................................A-30 Figure 9 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (Napa County)...........................................................................A-31 Figure 10 Population of Adults Living Alone (Napa County)..................................................................................................A-32 Figure 11 Children in Married-Couple Households (St. Helena).............................................................................................A-33 Figure 12 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (St. Helena) .............................................A-34 Figure 13 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (St. Helena)................................................................................A-35 Figure 14 Population of Adults Living Alone (St. Helena) ......................................................................................................A-36 Figure 15 Median Household Income (2015-2019)................................................................................................................A-38 Figure 16 Median Household Income (Napa County) ............................................................................................................A-41 Figure 17 Low and Moderate Income Population (Napa County) ..........................................................................................A-42 Figure 18 Median Household Income (St. Helena).................................................................................................................A-43 Figure 19 Low to Moderate Income Population (St. Helena) .................................................................................................A-44 Figure 20 Areas of High Poverty (Napa County) ....................................................................................................................A-47 Figure 21 Poverty Status (St. Helena) ....................................................................................................................................A-48 Figure 22 Neighborhood Segregation (St. Helena).................................................................................................................A-49 Figure 23 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Napa County) ......................................................................................A-55 Figure 24 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (St. Helena)...........................................................................................A-56 Figure 25 Predominant White Population (Napa County)......................................................................................................A-57 Figure 26 Predominant Populations and Median Household Income (St. Helena) .................................................................A-58 Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-3
Figure 27 Walkability Index (St. Helena)................................................................................................................................A-61 Figure 28 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Napa County) ...........................................................................A-65 Figure 29 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (St. Helena)................................................................................A-66 Figure 30 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Napa County).............................................................................................A-69 Figure 31 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (St. Helena) .................................................................................................A-70 Figure 32 Job Proximity Index (St. Helena) ............................................................................................................................A-71 Figure 33 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Napa County) ...........................................................................................A-77 Figure 34 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (Napa County)........................................................................................A-78 Figure 35 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (St. Helena) ................................................................................................A-79 Figure 36 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (St. Helena) ............................................................................................A-80 Figure 37 Overpayment By Renters (Napa County)................................................................................................................A-81 Figure 38 Overpayment By Homeowners (Napa County).......................................................................................................A-82 Figure 39 Overpayment By Renters (St. Helena) ....................................................................................................................A-83 Figure 40 Overpayment By Homeowners (St. Helena) ...........................................................................................................A-87 Figure 41 Housing Stock Age (2015-2019) ............................................................................................................................A-89 Figure 42 Overcrowded Households (Napa County) ..............................................................................................................A-93 Figure 43 Overcrowded Households (St. Helena)...................................................................................................................A-94 Figure 44 Sensitive Communities (Napa County)...................................................................................................................A-97 Figure 45 Sensitive Communities (St. Helena) .......................................................................................................................A-98 Figure 46 Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race .................................................................................................A-101 Figure 47 Location of Sites Inventory in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas.............................................................A-105 Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-4
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-5
1.Introduction
In 2018, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 686 to expand upon fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The law requires all State and local public agencies to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities. AB 686 created new requirements that apply to all housing elements due for revision on or after January 1, 2021. The passage of AB 686 protects the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing within State law.
AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH)” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.” AB 686 added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element which includes the following components:
• A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity
• An analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities • An assessment of contributing factors
• An identification of fair housing goals and actions.56
1.1 Approach to Analysis
This AFFH analysis is consistent with the 2021 California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (AFFH Guidance Memo) which provides guidance on the preparation of housing elements and ensures statutory requirements are satisfied, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(10).
This AFFH analysis evaluates fair housing issues on the following topics:
1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
2. Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
3. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
4. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
5. Disproportionate Housing Needs
56 Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-6
6. Other Relevant Factors, including historical disinvestment, lack of infrastructure improvements, and presence of older affordable housing units that may be at risk of conversion to market-rate housing.
Fair housing priorities goals and actions are also provided specific to St. Helena to address as implementation actions for the Housing Element. The goals and actions address the major contributing factors for the topics above.
1.2 Fair Housing Methodology
The California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires cities and counties to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.
To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources, including:
• The Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer • AFFH Segregation Report by ABAG
• Napa Sonoma Collaborative
• Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
• U.S Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
• CalEnviroscreen
• California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
• The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) • US Census American Community Survey (ACS)
• AllTransit
• Walk Score
Additionally, the analysis includes input from sources of local knowledge, including special needs groups, housing advocacy organizations, housing and services providers, and residents.
1.2.1 Housing and Community Development’s AFFH Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer is a tool developed by HCD that features census block group and tract level data from an expansive collection of sources including ACS, HUD, TCAC, UDP, and CHAS. The Data Viewer tool serves as a resource for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing. The Data Viewer is Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-7
intended to assist in the creation of policies that alleviate disparities, combat discrimination, and increase access to safe and affordable homes.
1.2.2 AFFH Segregation Report
The University of California, Merced and STIR Labs, on behalf of ABAG, prepared reports for jurisdictions in California studying segregation patterns and current land use policies that correlate with patterns of racial segregation. The report for St. Helena addresses racial and income segregation using the racial isolation index, racial dissimilarity index, and Thiel’s H-Index at the neighborhood level within and regional level.
1.2.3 Napa Sonoma Collaborative
The Napa Sonoma Collaborative (NSC) is a collaboration between Napa and Sonoma Counties that aims to address housing challenges within the region. NSC is made up of housing staff from jurisdictions within Napa and Sonoma Counties and is working to raise awareness and increase participation in the Housing Element update process. The collaborative conducted outreach to gather information on fair housing issues within local communities and discuss constraints to affordable housing.
1.2.4 Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
The UDP was developed to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California. Indicators of gentrification and displacement are measured at the census tract level based on data from the 2015 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods. Additionally, census tracts identified as disadvantaged neighborhoods by UDP’s criteria are further analyzed to explore changes in the percentage of college educated residents, non-Hispanic White population, median household income, and median gross rents over time to determine levels of gentrification and displacement risk.
1.2.5 CalEnviroscreen
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed a screening methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. This tool, called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, if a community has a high score for that indicator, it is more impacted by pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities compared to other communities. Designated disadvantaged communities are those with CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher, meaning that they scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts across California. There are no disadvantaged communities in St. Helena.
1.2.6 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) HCD and the TCAC created the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-8
agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals.57 The Task Force created the AFFH Data Viewer, an interactive mapping tool to assess population and housing characteristics related to fair housing and access to opportunity to aid in the development of policy for the promotion of equitable and inclusive communities. The data viewer includes Opportunity Maps made from composite scores of three different domains made up from a set of indicators data shown in Table 1. The Opportunity Maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty Status. Census tracts with at least 30 percent of population that earned an income that was below the federal poverty level.
• Racial Segregation. Census tracts with a location quotient that is higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asians, or all non-White populations in comparison to the county.
Table 1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, Adult Education, employment, Job proximity, median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values Education Math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, student poverty rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020
1.2.7 AllTransit
AllTransit is an online database that details transit opportunity for communities. The website explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. The AllTransit performance score explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, such as connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.
1.2.8 Walk Score
Walk Score provides walkability services and apartment search tools to addresses across the United States, with the mission “to promote walkable neighborhoods.” Walk Score measures walkability by assigning a numerical walkability score based on distance to amenities within a 30-minute walk and evaluates pedestrian friendliness by analyzing population density and road metrics, including block length and intersection density.
57Office of The State Treasurer (STO). 2021. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020-tcac-hcdmethodology.pdf Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-9
1.2.9 Community Engagement and Outreach
As part of the Housing Element Update, the City implemented a community engagement program, soliciting input from the general public, housing stakeholders, and City decision makers. Results and feedback obtained during the community engagement program have been incorporated into the Housing Element, including this section on affirmatively furthering fair housing practices. Please see Chapter 1 for more details on the City’s outreach efforts.
2.Summary of Fair Housing Issues
This summary guides the prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues and the creation of goals and actions to address these issues. Fair housing issues are conditions that restrict fair housing choice or access to opportunity in the geographic area of interest. Fair housing choice means realistic housing opportunities exist, can be accessed without discrimination towards protected characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex, disability, etc., and are informed with adequate information regarding options.
2.1 Regional Trends
Impediments to fair housing within Napa County, and the Bay Area as a whole, include the following:
• Residential segregation between White residents and non-White residents has increased in the last decade.
• Areas with higher percentages of non-White residents generally have less access to proficient schools, jobs, and cleaner air and water.
• Median rental prices rose an approximately $483 (unadjusted for inflation) since 2009, from $1,087 to $1,570, an increase of 44.4 percent in a 10-year period. • The average home value increased from approximately $319,926 to $768,414 in less than 20 years, from 2001 to 2020 (unadjusted for inflation).
• Housing Choice Voucher holders and those with disabilities often find it difficult to find an appropriate housing unit based on locating a unit of appropriate size and/or cost. • Disability, race, and familial status are the most common bases of housing discrimination complaints forwarded to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
2.2 Local Trends
Contributing factors identified as impediments to fair housing in St. Helena are discussed in detail below and include descriptions of how each impediment is addressed in this Housing Element.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-10
2.2.1 Concentrations of Lower- and Moderate-Income Earning Populations HUD defines a Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population earn an income that is considered lower or moderate relative to the area median income. In St. Helena, residents with low and moderate household incomes are concentrated in the eastern portion of the city. The Housing Element ensures available land to accommodate all income levels on sites located across the city. Efforts to combat this impediment are outlined in Programs H-A, H-B, H-N, H-O, HR, H-U, H-V, H-W and H-OO, which focus on maintaining an inventory of sites suitable for residential development and prioritize and incentivize housing development for lower- and moderate-income residents in the western portion of the city.
2.2.2 Insufficient Housing Stock for Farmworkers
Farmworker housing is a critical need in Napa County and St. Helena due to the presence of year-round agricultural production. The migratory and sometimes seasonal nature of farm workers pose housing challenges for a community and are seen as an impediment for St. Helena as the City tries to house its entire population. Efforts to combat this impediment are outlined in Programs H-E, H-H, H-I, and H-KK, which work to support regional and City farmworker housing efforts, including creating incentives and fasttracking development for workforce/farmworker housing.
2.2.3 Lack of Affordable Housing Types
There is a lack of diversity in housing types that restricts development of affordable housing in St. Helena.
Local land use and zoning regulations perpetuate this deficiency by limiting the form of housing that can be developed on a particular site. Much of the residentially zoned parcels within the city are zoned low and moderate density residential and are not compatible with the construction of duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and multifamily housing developments. The City is upzoning a number of parcels as a part of the Housing Element Update to allow higher density residential development. Efforts to combat this impediment are outlined in Programs H-A, H-B, H-E, H-H, H-I, H-J, H-M, H-N, H-P, H-Q, H-V, H-X, H-AA, HDD, H-EE, H-FF, H-GG, H-LL, H-NN, and H-OO, which focus on maintaining an inventory of sites suitable for residential development, updating municipal code for developing workforce/farmworker housing, ADUs, housing for disabled and homeless persons, and non-traditional housing types, increasing development density, and fast-tracking housing development.
2.3 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity is the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing agencies to distribute fair housing and tenants’ rights information to their community. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, resolving issues, and conducting fair housing testing.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-11
2.3.1 Regional Resources
Several organizations in Napa County provide aid for fair housing issues and outreach. Table 2 shows organizations and agencies that collaborate with local governments, including St. Helena to address housing and community needs and provide the following services:
• Housing Need Assessment
• Homelessness Needs
• Market Analysis
• Fair housing testing and complaints
• Fair housing counseling and education
• Tenant/landlord counseling and mediation
• Homeless prevention program
• Rental assistance program
• Rent/deposit grant program
• Home seeking services
• Shared housing counseling placement
• Homebuyers’ education learning program
Table 2 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Napa County Organization URL Phone Number
Abode Services https://www.abodeservices.org/napa-county (510) 657-7409 Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA) https://baylegal.org/ (800) 551-554 CA Department of Fair Employment and
Housing https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/ (800) 884-1684
EAH Housing https://www.eahhousing.org/
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern
California (FHANC) https://www.fairhousingnorcal.org/ (415) 457-5025 Fair Housing Napa Valley (FHNV) https://napafairhousing.org/ (707) 224-9720 Napa Continuum of Care https://homelessnapa.com/
Napa County Housing and Homeless
Services Division
https://www.countyofnapa.org/272/HomelessServices (707) 271-7818 Napa Valley Community Housing https://nvch.org/ (707) 253-6140 North Bay Housing Coalition https://www.northbayhousingcoalition.org/ (707) 289-7000 Source: City of Napa AI, 2020; Napa Sonoma Collaborative Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity and Resources, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-12
2.3.2 Local Resources
The City of St. Helena contracts with the non-profit organization Fair Housing Napa Valley (FHNV), a regional non-profit fair housing agency, to assist residents with fair housing counseling services, connections to rental assistance and homelessness prevention programs, and to conduct fair housing testing. FHNV assists residents and landlords throughout the city, providing mediation, investigation, and referral services. In addition to the fair housing services provided by active organizations, the Napa County Housing Authority administers the Housing Choice Voucher program for St. Helena and other jurisdictions in the county.
The City complies with existing fair housing laws and regulations. The City does not place more scrutiny or deny projects or individuals of their right to tenancy, residence, or entitlement based on memberships of protected class, in compliance with Government Code section 65008. Implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element would bring the City’s adopted regulations and policies into compliance with other fair housing regulations such as Program H-F which would bring density bonus provisions into compliance and allow for greater incentives for affordable housing. The City is also proposing updates to their existing Inclusionary Ordinance to promote more housing choices for residents.
2.3.2.1 Ability to Address Complaints
The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division initiated fair housing testing in 1991. This is a technique used to uncover evidence of discrimination in rental housing. Fair housing testing involves one or more individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, State, and federal fair housing laws. Enforcement actions may be taken when investigations yield evidence of a pattern or practice of illegal housing discrimination. Testing may be initiated following the filing of a specific housing discrimination complaint or, as is the case when testing for disability discrimination, as part of an overall effort to determine whether the design or architectural features of a specific rental facility comply with state and federal accessibility requirements. In Napa County, fair housing testing is used to identify unlawful housing discrimination practices based on the real or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender identity or expression, national origin, disability, familial status, marital status, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, and source of income of prospective renters. Fair Housing Napa Valley conducts fair housing testing of rental properties to assess how well rental properties are conforming to fair housing laws, assists residents in filing fair housing complaints, provides education and technical assistance to housing providers, and provide conciliation services for tenants and landlords.
The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) maintains a record of housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. From 2015 - 2019, 256 fair housing complaints originating in Napa County were filed with DFEH. Overall, disability-related discrimination comprised the largest proportion of cases (56 percent). The next highest basis for discrimination were race and familiar status, comprising nearly 8 percent each. According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, no fair housing inquiries for the City of St.
Helena were received between 2013 and 2021. Fair housing inquiries are comments or questions related to fair housing received by HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), not formal Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-13
discrimination complaints. The lack of inquiries is low for the region, as seen when compared to the cities of Santa Rosa (received 61), Sonoma (received 8), and Napa (received 33).
2.3.3 Findings, Lawsuits, and Enforcement Actions
There are currently no active fair housing lawsuits or enforcement actions in the city. However, historically, low-income and minority populations have struggled to procure affordable housing opportunities in the city. In addition, residents have challenged the City for not doing enough to combat housing segregation issues between the western and eastern portions of the city.
In 2013, the City of St. Helena signed a settlement agreement with Esvin Calderon as well as other residents and fair housing providers who had filed a lawsuit against the City on the basis that the City “promoted or maintained policies, practices, or actions that had the purpose of effect of displacing or excluding Latino residents and low-income residents from the City”. According to the settlement the City would comply with a list of requirements that would promote the development of affordable housing units in the city, including depositing $500,000 to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and amending the St.
Helena Municipal Code to support and prioritize affordable housing development, and to host fair housing workshops in collaboration with Napa Valley Fair Housing.
In 2016, St. Helena Residents For An Equitable General Plan, the McCorkle East Side Neighborhood Group, and the Protect the St. Helena Vineyard Riverwalk Community Group filed a claim with the City citing that the city is “a segregated city, with an affluent White west and diverse east side where most Hispanics, seniors, and members of other protected groups live largely in a concentrated area near the Napa River.” The City is in the process of adopting a new Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the 2040 General Plan, which would permit duplexes and triplexes within the MR District (see Program H-N). This would create additional housing choices and affordability levels in the MR Districts on the western side of the city. In addition, several programs, including H-BB, H-EE, and H-XX would implement placemaking strategies to outreach and work with the more diverse and older populations living in the east due to the historic development patterns.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-14
3.Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends. Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability in a specific geographic area. Segregation generally means the opposite condition, in which there is a high concentration of the characteristics described above in a specific geographic area. To adequately assess the patterns of integration and segregation, this section identifies trends at the regional scale (Napa County) and at the local scale (St. Helena).
3.1 Race and Ethnicity
The ethnic and racial composition of a community relates to other housing characteristics including household size, locational preference, and economic opportunity. Additionally, race/ethnicity is a known contributor to unfair housing practices. Historical patterns of racial/ethnic segregation were results of governmental policies from the federal to local level that promoted exclusionary actions and disparate treatment of people of color such as redlining, racially restrictive covenants, and mortgage lending practices. The existence of concentrations of minorities living in one location may be an indicator that some minority groups do not have as many housing choices as non-minority residents.
3.1.1 Regional Trends
Regionally, the urbanized areas of Napa County are more diverse, with a minimum of 40 percent of the population consisting of non-White residents, as demonstrated in the geographic depiction of 2014-2018 ACS data shown in Figure 1. Comparatively, populations in the less urbanized and less densely populated areas of Napa County are generally more predominantly White with populations consisting of about 60 percent or greater of White residents.
HUD utilizes the racial/ethnic dissimilarity index as a measure of segregation. The racial/ethnic dissimilarity index represents the extent of which any two racial/ethnic groups differ across a defined geographical area.
The index ranges from 0-100, where 0 represents perfect integration between the two racial/ethnic groups and 100 representing perfect segregation. An index value below 40 is generally considered low segregation, a value between 40 and 54 is considered a moderate level of segregation, and a value above 55 is a high level of segregation.
58 Racial/ethnic segregation in Napa County slightly increased between 2010 and 2019. Table 3 shows racial/ethnic segregation in Napa County using the dissimilarity index using data from HUD’s AFFH mapping tool. Black and Asian/Pacific Islander residents are the most segregated compared to other racial and ethnic groups. Segregation between Black and White residents and between Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents is high, since their racial dissimilarity index scores are above 55 for 2019. Segregation between Non-White and White residents and between Hispanic and White residents 58HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-15
is considered low, since their racial dissimilarity index scores are below 40 for 2019. In Napa County, there has been an increase in segregation across all measured racial/ethnic groups between 2010 and 2019.
Table 3 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (Napa County) Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 2000 2010 2019
Non-White/White 19.58 26.18 31.24 36.84
Black/White 56.22 52.61 58.76 67.86
Hispanic/White 21.86 28.94 30.13 35.61
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 37.11 38.97 57.35 64.47 Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Mapping Tool – Table 3, Version AFFHT0006, 2022
3.1.2 Local Trends
St. Helena is more diverse compared to rural areas of Napa County, which are predominantly White, and less diverse than the cities of Napa and American Canyon. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, White residents comprise the largest racial/ethnic group in St. Helena, followed by Hispanic/Latino residents. The predominant population throughout the entire city is White, as shown in Figure 3. The northwest area of the city has the highest predominance of White residents, although the southeast area of the city is predominantly White as well. The eastern areas of the city have the largest non-White populations, as shown in Figure 3.
3.2 Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities include those with a physical or mental impairment including hearing, vision, mobility, cognitive function. For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity include access to accessible housing and housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s needs as required under federal civil rights law, including equitably provided disability-related services that an individual needs to live in such housing. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have actual housing choice without the presence of housing units with these accessibility features.59
High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to both physical needs and economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureau-designated poverty line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.60 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit. 59 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 60 The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics. 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-16
3.2.1.1 Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, a total of 16,244 Napa County residents had one or more disabilities, which represents approximately 11.8 percent of the county’s total population. Figure 4 shows the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities throughout Napa County. The western areas of the county, which includes the urban areas of the cities, have higher concentrations of persons living with one or more disabilities compared to the eastern areas of the county. The southeastern area of the City of Napa has the highest concentration of persons living with one or more disabilities in the county.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-17
Figure 1 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-18
Figure 2 Percent of Total Non-White Population (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-19
Figure 3 Predominant Populations (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-20
Figure 4 Percent of Population with a Disability (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-21
3.2.2 Local Trends
The 2015-2019 ACS estimated a total of 726 residents in St. Helena were living with one or more disabilities, which is approximately 11.9 percent of the total population. Of the 726 individuals living with a one or more disabilities, 466 (64.2 percent) are age 65 or older. The most common type of disability in St.
Helena is ambulatory difficulty, defined as those who have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, as shown in
Figure 5. Persons with ambulatory disability have specific housing needs and may require housing that is wheelchair accessible or lacks stairs or steps.
Figure 5 Disability by Type (St. Helena)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.
Figure 6 highlights the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities in the city by census tract. The southeastern parts of the city, east of Spring Street and Pope Street, have higher concentrations of residents with one or more disabilities (between 10 and 20 percent living with at least one disability).
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-22
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-23
Figure 6 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-24
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-25
3.3 Familial Status
Familial status refers to families with children under the age of 18, including those with legal custody of a child, pregnant persons, and those in the process of adopting or gaining legal custody. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords, including being denied housing due to the presence of children or being subject to special restrictions or fees. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining children to a specific location or unit are also fair housing concerns. In a 2016 housing discrimination study, researchers found that compared to households without children, households with children were shown slightly fewer units and were commonly told about units that were slightly larger, and as a result, slightly more expensive to rent.61 Additionally, female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of generally greater needs for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.
3.3.1 Regional Trends
Most households in Napa County are family households, comprising approximately 68 percent of the total 48,705 households in the county. Households with children present comprise 28.1 percent (13,699 households) of the total households or 41.4 percent of all family households in the county. Married couples without children represent 46.9 percent of family households. The majority of family households with children are married couple households with fewer numbers of female and male single parent households.
Single-parent households are more often at risk for housing issues because they rely on a single income and may require access to affordable childcare. Table 4 shows a breakdown of household type by tenure (owned versus rented) and presence of children in Napa County. Single-parent households are more likely to rent than own, especially female, single-parent households. There are 1,008 single-parent households that own and 2,323 single-parent households that rent in Napa County.
Table 4 Household Type and Tenure (Napa County)
Household Type
OwnerOccupied
Percent of Total
OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupied
Percent of Total
RenterOccupied
Married Couple Family, with
Children Present 6,257 20.0% 4,036 23.2%
Single-Parent, Male Householder, no
Spouse Present 383 1.2% 577 3.3%
Single Parent, Female Householder,
No Spouse Present 700 2.2% 1,746 10.0%
Total Households with Children
Present 7,340 23.5% 6,359 36.5%
Total Households 31,276 100% 17,429 100%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates. 61 HUD. 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-26
Figure 7 shows the percentage of children in married couple households in Napa County. The less urban areas of the county have higher concentrations of children residing in married couple households while the urban areas have a lower percentage of children residing in married couple households. In most areas of the county the majority of children live in married couple households, however the northern half of the county generally has a higher percentage of children living in married couple households compared to the southern half.
Figure 8 shows the estimated percentage of children in households with a female head of household with no spouse or partner. Urban areas of the county, especially areas of the City of Napa and Town of Yountville, have higher concentrations of children in female single-parent households with between 20 and 40 percent of family households headed by a single parent female. The southern area of the City of Napa has the highest concentration of children in households with a female head of household with no spouse or partner, with between 40 and 60 percent of families headed by a single parent female. Less urban areas of the county, outside of incorporated cities, have less than 20 percent of families headed by a single female.
Figure 9 shows the percentage of adults living with a spouse or partner in Napa County. In most areas of the county 40 to 60 percent of adults are living with a spouse/partner. In areas in the southeast portion of the county, and on the west side of the City of Napa, there is a higher concentration of adults living with a spouse/partner, consisting of approximately 60 to 80 percent of adults.
Figure 10 shows the percentage of adults living alone, with less than 20 percent adults living alone in most areas in Napa County. In several of the more urban areas, specifically portions of the City of Napa, Yountville, and St. Helena, there is a higher concentration of adults living alone (greater than 20 percent).
3.3.2 Local Trends
Approximately 58 percent of the total 2,702 households in St. Helena are family households, as shown in Table 5. The majority of families are married couple families with more renters than homeowners. However, more single-parent households own their home than rent. Table 6 shows the breakdown of families with children by tenure and household type.
Non-family households are the second most common household type; a total of 42 percent of households fall into this category. These are primarily individuals living alone. Female single parent families make up about 10 percent of both owner-occupied units and rented units. Compared to the entire county, St. Helena has a greater percentage of non-family households, especially those living alone.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-27
Table 5 Household Type and Tenure (St. Helena)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table S2501 Occupancy Characteristics, 2015-2019 Estimates.
Table 6 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (St. Helena) Household Type
OwnerOccupied
Percent of Total
OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupied
Percent of Total
RenterOccupied
Married Couple Family, with
Children Present 164 10.3% 230 20.7%
Single-Parent, Male Householder, no
Spouse Present 17 1.1% 11 0.1%
Single Parent, Female Householder,
No Spouse Present 114 7.2% 50 4.5%
Total Households with Children
Present 295 18.6% 291 26.2%
Total Households 1,590 100% 1,112 100%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates.
The majority of children in St. Helena live in married couple households; however, this percentage is less than in rural areas of Napa County. Figure 11 shows the percentage of children in married couple households in St. Helena is between 60 and 80 percent, while more than 80 percent of children in the surrounding rural areas live in married couple households.
Figure 12 shows the percentage of children in female single-parent households in St. Helena. In the northwest areas of St. Helena, 20 to 40 percent of children live in female single-parent households. In the southeast areas of the city less than 20 percent of children live in female single-parent households.
Figure 13 provides estimates regarding the percent of the adult population living with a spouse in St.
Helena. Throughout the city, 40 to 60 percent of adults are living with a spouse. Figure 14 shows the Household Type Owner-Occupied
Percent of Total
Owner-Occupied
RenterOccupiedPercent of Total
Renter-Occupied
Family
Households 920 58 586 53
Married couple family 735 46 408 37
Male householder, no
spouse present 29 2 63 6
Female householder, no
spouse present 156 10 115 10
Non-family
households 670 42 526 47
Living Alone 644 41 395 36
Not Living Alone 26 2 131 12
Total Households 1,590 1,112
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-28
percentage of the adult population living alone in St. Helena. In the western half of the city, 20 to 40 percent of adults live alone while in the eastern half of the city less than 20 percent of adults live alone.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-29
Figure 7 Children in Married-Couple Households (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-30
Figure 8 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-31
Figure 9 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-32
Figure 10 Population of Adults Living Alone (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-33
Figure 11 Children in Married-Couple Households (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-34
Figure 12 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-35
Figure 13 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-36
Figure 14 Population of Adults Living Alone (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-37
Overall, the northwest portion of the city has a higher proportion of children living in female single-parent households and a higher proportion of adults living alone compared to the southeast portion of the city.
The percentages of children living in married couple households and adults living with a spouse/partner are high throughout the city.
3.4 Household Income
Household income is directly related to the ability to afford housing. Higher income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. However, as household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases. To achieve fair housing objectives, people in low-income households must have actual choice in housing opportunities – that is, they are able to locate units that are affordable and well maintained in all parts of a jurisdiction and region.
Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the area median income).
3.4.1 Regional Trends
The median household income of Napa County is $88,596. LMI areas are concentrated in the more urbanized areas of the county, including the City of Napa, St. Helena, and Calistoga. Rural areas of the county tend to have higher income households. Figure 15 shows the median household income for cities within Napa County.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-38
Figure 15 Median Household Income (2015-2019)
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
Figure 16 shows median household income by block group using 2015-2019 ACS estimates. Block groups with the lowest median income are the eastern area of St. Helena, the area south of Yountville, and areas within the City of Napa.
LMI populations by census tract for Napa County are displayed in Figure 17. Census tracts within Cities of Napa, St. Helena, and Calistoga have the highest percentages of populations with low to moderate income.
These areas are the same areas with the highest percentages of non-White population.
3.4.2 Local Trends
Household incomes in St. Helena tend to be higher than the region as a whole, with a median income of $90,031 compared to the median household income of Napa County ($88,596). St. Helena has a higher median income than many of the surrounding cities, including the cities of Napa, Yountville, and Calistoga, as shown in Figure 15.
Figure 18 provides an overview of median household income by block group in the city. The census blocks with the lowest median income are located on the northeast and east side of St. Helena with median incomes of $47,083 and $51,544, which is less than the state median income of $87,100. Community input identified that many of the property owners in this area are not lower income and are in fact very wealthy.
The low-medium income trends in this area of the city may partially be attributed to the three affordable housing developments (Stonebridge Apartments, Woodbridge Village Apartments, and Hunt’s Grove $-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
American
Canyon
Angwin Calistoga Deer Park Moskowite
Corner
Napa Oakville Rutherford St. Helena Yountville
Median Household Income Average
$101,792
$72,625
$67,119
$89,500
$61,875
$88,596
$99,375
$90,031
$69,300
$84,043
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-39
Apartments), Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park, and a senior living community (Silverado Orchards Retirement Community) all located within these two census blocks. The census block with the highest median income is located in the downtown area in the center of the city with a median income of $158,500. The AFFH Data Viewer has no information on median income of the northwest area of St.
Helena.
The LMI populations in St. Helena are concentrated on the east side of the city, as shown in Figure 19.
According to HUD estimates, in the eastern area of the city 68 percent of the population are LMI populations. In contrast, on western side of city less than 20 percent of the population is LMI. This pattern closely corresponds with areas of the city that have a greater non-White population concentration, which is also greater on the eastern side of the city.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-40
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-41
Figure 16 Median Household Income (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-42
Figure 17 Low and Moderate Income Population (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-43
Figure 18 Median Household Income (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-44
Figure 19 Low to Moderate Income Population (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-45
3.5 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty To identify racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (known as R/ECAPs), HUD developed thresholds based on racial and ethnic concentration and income level. The threshold for racial and ethnic concentration is a non-White population of 50 percent or more within metropolitan or micropolitan areas (in rural areas it is 20 percent). Areas of “extreme poverty” are defined using the poverty test as those with more than 40 percent of the population at or below the poverty line or a poverty rate or three times the average of the metropolitan area, whichever is less. Areas that meet both the racial/ethnic concentration threshold and the “extreme poverty” threshold are considered R/ECAPs.
3.5.1 Poverty and Segregation
3.5.1.1 Regional Trends
There are no R/ECAPs within Napa County, however there is a small area of in the southern portion of the City of Napa that would be considered an area of extreme poverty with more than 40 percent of the population below the poverty line. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately 8 percent of the population of Napa County is below the poverty level. Several areas within county have 10 and 20 percent of the population below the poverty line, including areas in the southern region of the county, in and around the Cities of Napa, American Canyon, and St. Helena. Figure 20 shows the poverty status within Napa County.
3.5.1.2 Local Trends
St. Helena does not have any R/ECAPs. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately 8 percent of the population of St. Helena are living below the poverty level, consistent with poverty rates of Napa County. The western half of the city has a greater percentage of the population below the poverty line, between 10 and 20 percent. This area also had a higher percentage of children in a female single parent household.
Figure 21 displays the percentage of the population whose income is below the poverty line in St. Helena.
The poverty rates in St. Helena have shifted over time. The 2010-2014 ACS estimated the eastern half of the city had a greater percentage of the population below the poverty line, opposite of the trend shown by the 2015-2019 ACS estimates.
Figure 22 shows neighborhood segregation in St. Helena using to data from UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project (UDP). According to the UDP the predominant racial/ethnic composition in St. Helena is Latinx-White. ABAG’s Segregation Report also analyzed neighborhood segregation in St. Helena between 2010 and 2020 using the racial isolation index, racial dissimilarity index, and Thiel’s H-Index. The isolation index showed White residents are the most segregated racial group in the city, followed by Latinx residents. The dissimilarity index showed segregation is greatest between Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents, followed by Latinx and White residents. However, the dissimilarity index is an unreliable measure for Asian/Pacific Islander and Black/African populations in St. Helena because their populations are too Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-46
small for accurate calculation. Thiel’s H-index for neighborhood level segregation indicated racial segregation between all racial groups within the city is less than in the average Bay Area jurisdiction.
Compared to all Bay Area jurisdictions, St. Helena is less diverse, with a smaller percentage of the population consisting of people of color.
ABAG’s Segregation Report also analyzed neighborhood level income segregation between 2010 and 2015 in St. Helena using the income group isolation index, income group dissimilarity index, and Thiel’s H-index.
The isolation index showed above moderate income residents are the most segregated income group in the city followed by very low income residents. Among all income groups, segregation of the moderate income population has changed the most between 2010 and 2015, becoming less segregated. The dissimilarity index showed income segregation is greater in St. Helena than in the average Bay Area jurisdiction between lower income residents and non-lower income residents and between very low income residents and above moderate income residents. Overall, segregation between lower income residents and residents who are not lower income increased between 2010 and 2015. According to Thiel’s H-index for neighborhood level income segregation, income segregation in the city is less than the average Bay Area city and remained about the same between 2010 and 2015. Compared to all Bay Area jurisdictions, St.
Helena has a similar share of very low income residents, lower share of low and moderate income residents, and a higher share of above moderate income residents.
In summary, ABAG’s segregation report found White residents and above moderate income residents are the largest and most segregated racial and income groups in St. Helena.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-47
Figure 20 Areas of High Poverty (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-48
Figure 21 Poverty Status (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-49
Figure 22 Neighborhood Segregation (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-50
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-51
3.5.2 Concentrated Areas of Affluence
While racially R/ECAPs have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed. Racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) are affluent communities that are predominantly White.62 According to a policy paper published by HUD, White residents are the most racially segregated group in the United States and are typically more affluent than majority non-White communities. In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence experience less overcrowding, less housing cost burden on renters, and are generally less susceptible to displacement compared to LMI areas.
RCAAs have not been studied extensively, nor has a standard definition been published by HCD or HUD.
HCD has created a metric to identify RCAAs by analyzing the total White population for each census tract and comparing it to the average percentage of total White populations for all census tracts within a given Council of Government (COG) region. This compared value is referred to as the Location Quotient (LQ). For example, a census tract with an LQ of 1.5 has a percentage of total White population that is 1.5 times higher than the average percentage of total White population within the COG region. HCD identifies RCAAs as census tracts with an LQ of more than 1.25 and a median income 1.5 times higher than the COG AMI (or
1.5x the State AMI, whichever is lower).
3.5.3 Regional Trends
There are several RCAAs in Napa County, which are primarily located in more rural areas of the county.
Most of the RCAAs are concentrated along the western portion of the county with several RCAAs located within the northwest part of the City of Napa as well as in the rural areas northeast of the City of Napa. shows RCAAs in Napa County.
The population of Napa County is predominantly White, with the highest concentration of White residents residing in rural areas of the county. Figure 23 highlights the predominantly White census tracts in Napa County. Areas with a lower concentration of White residents are generally located within the valley where population density is higher. The more rural areas along the eastern border of Napa County have high concentrations of White populations, which corresponds with areas that have the highest median incomes in the county.
3.5.4 Local Trends
There are no RCAAs identified within St. Helena. However, similar to patterns of affluence throughout Napa County, areas of St. Helena with higher median incomes correspond to areas with higher proportions of White residents. The northwestern area of the city has a larger proportion of White residents and a higher median income, while the southeastern area has greater racial/ethnic diversity and a lower median income.
The northwestern area of the city has a predominant White population (over 50 percent) and the 62 Goatz, Damanio and Williams, “Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation” https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol21num1/ch4.pdf, (2019).
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-52
southeastern area of the city has a large White population and large Hispanic population (approximately 48 percent each). Figure 26 shows the overlap of high median income and predominant White population in St. Helena.
In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence in St. Helena experience lower percentages of overpayment by homeowners, more positive economic outcomes, and more positive environmental outcomes compared to LMI areas.
3.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
According to HCD guidance, land use policies and planning often translate into the ability of residents to access neighborhoods of opportunity, with high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs that afford entry to the middle class, and convenient access to transit and services. The limits on housing choice and access experienced by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability, have far-reaching impacts on access to job opportunity, quality education, and mental and physical health.63 Access to opportunity often means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food, and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).
The analysis of place-based characteristics linked to opportunity indicators, quality education, employment, transportation, and healthy environment, seeks to understand the disparity between communities in terms of access to real and potential economic benefits and quality of life.
3.6.1 Transit Access
Reliable access to public transit is crucial, especially for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities, to provide connections to employment opportunities. Access to employment via public transit can reduce income burden and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing in more areas.64 The lack of a relationship between public transit, employment opportunities, and affordable housing may impede fair housing choice. Persons who depend on public transit may have limited choices regarding places to live.
3.6.2 Regional Trends
As Napa County is largely rural, residents mainly depend on their personal vehicles for commuting and traveling. Public transit options do exist in Napa County, primarily Vine Transit, a fixed route bus service 63 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 64 Ong, Paul and Evelyn Blumenberg, “Job Accessibility and Welfare Usage: Evidence from Los Angeles.” UCLA Department of Policy Studies, (1998).
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-53
operated by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority. Vine Transit operates fixed bus route service throughout the county from American Canyon to Calistoga and provides connections to the Vallejo Ferry Terminal, and El Cerrito Del Norte BART station, SolTrans stations in Vallejo and Fairfield, and the Suisun/Fairfield Train Station. Lake Transit Authority connects southern areas of Lake County to northern Napa County, with bus stops in Calistoga, St. Helena, and Deer Park. Additionally, several low cost, on demand shuttle services are available to the public providing fixed route and door-to-door transit within the city limits of their operating city, including the Yountville Trolley, St. Helena Shuttle, Calistoga Shuttle, and American Canyon Transit. Residents and visitors with physical and/or cognitive disabilities may be eligible to participate in VineGo Paratransit Service, a shared ride service providing curb-to-curb transportation. VineGo offers rides within and between cities throughout the county as well as to Kaiser Vallejo Medical Center.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-54
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-55
Figure 23 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-56
Figure 24 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-57
Figure 25 Predominant White Population (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-58
Figure 26 Predominant Populations and Median Household Income (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-59
The Commuter Bike Path (Vine Trail) runs parallel to the Napa Valley Railroad and provides an off-street route walking/biking path for recreation and commuting. Ultimately the Vine Trail will cover 47 miles from Vallejo to Calistoga. Currently 12.5 miles of the path has been completed from Kennedy Park in the City of Napa to Yountville. Sections of the Vine trail have also been completed in American Canyon and Calistoga.
AllTransit is an online database that provides details on transit opportunity throughout the United States, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. Napa County received an AllTransit performance score of 3.3 which equates to a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit.65 Approximately 1.5 percent of commuters use public transit in Napa County. The cities of Napa (4.6), Yountville (4.6), and Calistoga (4.0) have the highest scores with a slighter greater combination of number of trips per week, accessible jobs, and available transit routes.
3.6.3 Local Trends
The City of St. Helena has an AllTransit performance score of 2.4 with approximately 1.0 percent of workers who commute using public transit. This score is lower than the County score of 3.3. One Vine Transit bus route passes through St. Helena, providing connections to the City of Calistoga to the north and City of Napa to the south. Additionally, the St. Helena Shuttle Service provides both a fixed route and an ondemand, door-to-door transit service option within the city limits.
Walk Score is a tool that produces a walkability index by assigning a numerical walkability score to cities and neighborhoods. Walkability is measured by analyzing population density, distance to amenities, and road metrics such as block length and intersection density. St. Helena has a walk score of 83, which is considered very walkable, and most errands can be accomplished by foot66. St. Helena’s walkability score is most negatively affected by the limited number of parks within walking distance from different areas of the city.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has a walkability index, which ranks block groups according to their relative walkability. The EPA walkability map, shown in Figure 27, shows that walkability varies across the city. The highest walkability scores are in downtown and along Main Street where most of the commercial areas are concentrated. Further from downtown and in the western and eastern parts of the city, walkability scores are below average.
65 https://alltransit.cnt.org/
66 https://www.walkscore.com/
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-60
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-61
Figure 27 Walkability Index (St. Helena)
Source: National Walkability Index, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-62
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-63
3.6.4 Access to Quality Education
Economics literature has consistently found about a 10 percent increase in wages/salary with each additional year of education.67 Educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. TCAC education domain scores, which are used to identify areas of higher or lower education opportunities, incorporate a variety of indicators including math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates and student poverty rates to assess educational outcomes at the census tract level.
3.6.5 Regional Trends
Napa County is served by five school districts: Napa Valley Unified School District, St. Helena Unified School District, Calistoga Joint Unified School District, Howell Mountain School District, and Pope Valley School District. An overview of education outcomes across the Napa County is illustrated in Figure 28 which shows the TCAC Opportunity Areas map. Education outcomes vary throughout the county. Areas in the western portion of the county and portions of the more urban areas have more positive education outcomes compared to eastern portions of the county and southern parts of the City of Napa.
3.6.6 Local Trends
The City of St. Helena is served by the St. Helena Unified School District which is comprised of four schools:
a primary school, elementary school, middle school, and high school. Altogether, approximately 1,243 students were enrolled in 2020 from the City St. Helena and the surrounding areas. Approximately 45 percent of students were White and 52 percent were Hispanic/Latino. St. Helena Unified School District reported a high school graduation rate of 92.9 percent in 2020, 90.1 percent in 2019, and 94.1 percent in 2018. The district reported all students who did not receive high school diplomas in 2019 were Long Term English Learners and socio-economically disadvantaged students.68 Figure 29Figure 28 shows TCAC scores for education outcomes for St. Helena at the census tract level. St.
Helena has better education outcomes than other areas of Napa County. At the city level, the southern and eastern areas of the city have better education outcomes than the western areas.
3.6.7 Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic opportunities. Access to high quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times.
The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data 67 The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics. 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
68 St. Helena Unified School District 2021-22 Local Control and Accountability Plan https://www.sthelenaunified.org/cms/lib/CA50000465/Centricity/Domain/36/LCAP%20Control%20Accountability%20Plan %202021%202022.pdf
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-64
from the ACS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC), and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.
TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract. They consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. The MTC EPC identifies concentrations of underserved populations in order to direct funding for housing and transportation equity. The HUD Jobs Proximity Index assesses the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-65
Figure 28 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-66
Figure 29 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-67
3.6.8 Regional Trends
According to the California Employment Development Department, the unemployment rate of Napa County was 3.9 percent in February 2022 (not seasonally adjusted). Top employers in the county include manufacturing (including large- and small-scale wine manufacturing), healthcare, and accommodation and food service. The 2015-2019 ACS estimates reported 74,549 workers in the County of Napa with a labor force participation rate of 65 percent of persons 16 years and older. Approximately 33.7 percent of workers commute 30 or more minutes to work with a countywide mean commute time of 25.6 minutes.
Figure 30 shows the TCAC Opportunity Areas map for economic outcomes across the county. Economic outcomes are varied with more positive outcomes generally located in the western areas of the county and less positive outcomes in the eastern areas of the county. This trend may be attributed to the high concentration of vineyards and wineries in the western and central areas of the county and low population density in eastern areas of the county.
3.6.9 Local Trends
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS), there are 3,159 persons in the labor force in St. Helena with a labor force participation rate of 61 percent. The California Employment Development Department reported the unemployment rate was 3.1 percent in December 2021 (not seasonally adjusted), slightly less than the county. Top industries in the city reflect county trends, with the highest number of workers in manufacturing, healthcare, and accommodation and food service.
Figure 31 shows the TCAC Opportunity Areas map for economic outcomes in St. Helena. Much like the county, economic outcomes are varied across the city. Western areas of the city have more positive economic outcomes and eastern areas have less positive economic outcomes. This pattern of lower economic outcomes in the eastern areas of the city reflects the lower median incomes and greater ethnic diversity that is also experienced in these areas. The eastern areas of the city contain affordable housing developments, a mobile home park, and senior living community which may be contributing to lower median incomes and lower median home values.
ACS 2015-2019 estimates show approximately 22.4 percent of workers commute 30 or more minutes to work and the mean commute time is 19.6 minutes. Figure 32 shows the job proximity index in St. Helena which assesses the accessibility of employment opportunities based on distance, a higher index score corresponds to closer job proximity. Job proximity throughout St. Helena is consistently high (closest proximity), especially when compared to the southern and eastern areas of the county.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-68
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-69
Figure 30 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-70
Figure 31 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-71
Figure 32 Job Proximity Index (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-72
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-73
3.6.10 Healthy Environment
Access to a healthy environment is necessary for communities within a city to thrive. Healthy environment analysis considers patterns in the disparities found within individual neighborhoods and protected area groups. These disparities can vary in a number of categories, including air quality, water quality, safe neighborhood, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. Recent California laws, AB 1550, Senate Bill (SB) 535 and SB 1000 emphasize the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue. Environmental Justice, as defined by HUD, means ensuring the environment and human health are protected fairly for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, and consideration the means by which federally assisted projects may have disproportionately adversely affect human health or the environmental on minority and low income populations.69 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution called. High scoring census tracts tend to be more burdened by pollution from multiple sources and are most vulnerable to its effects, taking into account their socioeconomic characteristics and underlying health status.
3.6.11 Regional Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Napa County identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. Figure 33 below shows the pollution burden for Napa County, representing the potential exposure to pollutants and resulting adverse environmental conditions. The more urban areas on the western side of the county have a higher pollution burden, especially within and to the south of the City of Napa. Figure 34 shows TCAC Opportunity Map for environmental outcomes in the county. Similar to the CalEnviroScreen map, the TCAC Opportunity Map shows that the western areas of the county have less positive environmental outcomes compared to the eastern areas of the county. This may be caused by the mountains flank the valley which block wind flow and trap pollution. Additionally, the western and central areas of the county have a higher concentration of people, traffic, and agriculture which produces greater levels of pollution and pesticides. Eastern areas of the county tend to be forested and are less populated
3.6.12 Local Trends
Pollution Burden in St. Helena is lower than many other areas in the county, as shown in Figure 35.
However, the eastern areas of the city have a slightly higher pollution burden (overall score of 40) compared to the rest of the city, with high burdens of pesticides, cleanups, and groundwater threats. The western areas have a slightly lower burden (overall score of 33) with high burdens of pesticides, cleanups, groundwater threats, and solid waste. Pesticide use is considered high throughout the city, likely due to pesticide applications on nearby vineyards. There are two cleanup sites located within the city including one site with an active dry-cleaning business and one site with a manufactured gas plant that was dismantled in 1930. These two cleanup sites are also sources that pose groundwater threats to the city. A 69 HUD, 2021. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/ Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-74
third cleanup site is located outside the city limits, southeast of the city, with a food market that has detected high pesticides in the soil beneath the building. A solid waste facility is located in the eastern area of the city which may potentially expose neighboring communities to environmental burdens such as odor, pests, and truck traffic. The southern and eastern areas of the city have a higher pollution burden, which corresponds with areas with higher ethnic diversity, higher populations with a disability, and lower median incomes discussed in the previous sections.
Figure 36 shows the TCAC Opportunity map for environmental outcomes in the City of St. Helena. The southern and eastern areas of the city have less positive environmental outcomes compared to the western areas.
3.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions
3.7.1 Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered cost burdened, and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered severely cost burdened. The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low-income households and persons in protected classes disproportionately experience severe housing problems. Housing problems are households that have one or more of the following problems: lacks a complete kitchen facility, lacks complete plumbing facility, a household that is overcrowded, or a household that is cost burdened.
3.7.2 Regional Trends
Figure 37 shows areas of Napa County where renter households overpay for housing (spend more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs). Overpayment by renters is a widespread issue across the county, especially in the more urban areas of the county as well as the northeast and southeast areas of the county. Similar to overpayment by renters, overpayment by homeowners is common throughout the county, highlighting that the costs of housing are too high for both renters and homeowners. Figure 38 shows areas of the county where homeowners overpay for housing, which is most prevalent in the urban areas of the county as well as the northwest and southeast areas of the county.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-75
3.7.3 Local Trends
Housing cost burden among renters is widespread in St. Helena. Figure 39 shows that 40 to 60 percent of renters overpay for housing in all areas of the city. Additionally, data from HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) indicates lower income households are disproportionately overpaying for housing.
Lower-income households experience higher cost burden than moderate income and above households in St. Helena. Approximately 41 percent of extremely low-income households (those earning 30 percent or less of the local area median income (AMI)) are considered severely cost burdened (spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing). Both renters and owners experience cost burden in St. Helena, with higher proportions of lower income households spending greater than 30 percent or 50 percent on housing.
Table 7 shows housing cost burden of lower income households in St. Helena. Generally, a higher percentage of renters than owners experience cost burden, however, more owners than renters experience severe cost burden.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-76
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-77
Figure 33 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Napa County) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-78
Figure 34 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (Napa County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-79
Figure 35 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (St. Helena) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-80
Figure 36 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (St. Helena) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-81
Figure 37 Overpayment By Renters (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-82
Figure 38 Overpayment By Homeowners (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-83
Figure 39 Overpayment By Renters (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-84
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-85
Table 7 Housing Cost Burden of Lower-Income Households (2014-2018) Household by Type,
Income, and Housing
Problem Renters Percent Owners Percent
Total
Households
Extremely Low-Income
(0-30 % AMI) 185 160 345
With Cost Burden >30% 100 54.1% 105 65.6% 205 59.4%
With Cost Burden >50% 50 27.0% 90 56.3% 140 40.6%
Very Low-Income
(0-30 % AMI) 240 105 345 %
With Cost Burden >30% 195 81.3% 70 66.7% 265 76.8%
With Cost Burden >50% 35 14.6% 40 38.1% 75 21.7%
Low-Income
(51-80 % AMI) 145 160 305 %
With Cost Burden >30% 100 69.0% 85 53.1% 185 60.7%
With Cost Burden >50% 40 27.6% 60 37.5% 100 32.8%
Moderate & Above
Income
(>80% AMI)
500 1,105 1,605 %
With Cost Burden >30% 133 26.6% 205 18.6% 338 21.1%
With Cost Burden >50% 8 1.6% 60 5.4% 68 4.2%
Total 1,070 41.2% 1,530 58.8% 2,600 %
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018
3.7.4 Substandard Housing
HUD considers housing units to be “standard units” if they are in compliance with local building codes.
Substandard housing is housing that poses a risk to the health, safety, or wellbeing of its occupants or neighbors, includes housing that does not have operable indoor plumbing, electricity, or heat. Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Typically, housing over 30 years old is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. Some older housing units may have health risks such as lead paint and asbestos. Housing issues such as mold may elevate health conditions such as asthma.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-86
3.7.5 Regional Trends
In Napa County approximately 73 percent of all housing units were built before 1990. These older units potentially require minor repairs and modernization improvements. Figure 41 shows the approximate break down by age of housing units.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-87
Figure 40 Overpayment By Homeowners (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-88
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-89
Figure 41 Housing Stock Age (2015-2019)
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 The County of Napa has a total of 881 substandard housing units, approximately 2 percent of the total occupied units in the county. A housing unit is considered substandard if it lacks complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. Of the 881 substandard units, approximately 15 percent lacked complete plumbing facilities and 85 percent lacked complete kitchen facilities. Table 8 shows a breakdown of the number of substandard housing units in Napa County and St. Helena. In the past, lack of telephone service was also an indicator of housing conditions. Today, with the widespread availability of cell and internet phone services, many households have chosen not to install land line telephone services, and availability of telephone service is no longer considered an indicator of substandard housing conditions.
Table 8 Substandard Housing Units (2019)
Condition Napa County St. Helena
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 128 0.26% 0 0.00%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 753 1.55% 83 3.07%
Total 48705 2702
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
3.7.6 Local Trends
As shown above in Figure 41, approximately 79 percent of the city’s housing stock was built prior to 1990, potentially requiring minor repairs and modernization improvements.
Table 8 shows 83 units, about 3 percent of the St. Helena’s housing stock, are considered substandard. All identified substandard units lacked complete kitchen facilities. 2014 or
later
2010 to
2013
2000 to
2009
1990 to
1999
1980 to
1989
1970 to
1979
1960 to
1969
1950 to
1959
1940 to
1949
1939 or
earlier
Napa County 1.87% 1.30% 11.76% 12.20% 13.56% 17.76% 12.13% 16.28% 4.86% 8.28% St. Helena 1.34% 0.58% 7.67% 11.58% 11.55% 22.56% 14.64% 14.52% 5.29% 10.27%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
Year Built
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-90
3.7.7 Homelessness
“Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
• Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and • Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
– A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
– An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
– A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
Throughout Napa Country, homelessness has become an increasingly important issue. Factors that contribute to the rise in homelessness include a lack of housing affordable available for low- and moderateincome households, increases in the number of persons whose incomes fall below the poverty level, reductions in public subsidies, and lack of support for persons with extreme developmental, physical, and mental disabilities.
3.7.8 Regional Trends
Napa County’s 2020 Point-In-Time Count indicated there were 464 persons experiencing homelessness in the county on any given night; mostly in the City of Napa. This is an increase from 322 persons in the 2018 Point-In-Time Count.
3.7.9 Local Trends
The number of homeless persons in St. Helena is unknown as the 2020 Point-In-Time Count does not include a breakdown of the homeless population by jurisdiction. Based on St. Helena’s share of the countywide population, 3.9 percent, it is estimated the City’s homeless population is approximately 18 persons.
3.7.10 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) and severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room. Large families generally have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms, resulting in overcrowding.
Some households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing and accept smaller housing or reside with other individuals or families in the same home. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-91
Household overcrowding is reflective of various living situations such as a housing unit that is inadequately sized to meet a household’s needs, the necessity or desire to have extended family members reside in an existing household, or unrelated individuals or families share a single housing unit.
Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain physical facilities and the delivery of public services, reduce the quality of the physical environment, contribute to a shortage of parking, and accelerate the deterioration of homes. As a result, some landlords or apartment managers may be more hesitant to rent to larger households, thus making access to adequate housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with higher proportion of overcrowding.
3.7.11 Regional Trends
In Napa County, approximately 6 percent of occupied housing units are overcrowded. As shown in Figure 42, overcrowded housing is most prevalent in the cities of Napa and Calistoga. The City of Napa has the highest percentage of overcrowded units. Certain areas within the city have between 14 and 36 percent of households that are overcrowded. Rural areas experience less overcrowding, and some rural areas have no overcrowded or severely overcrowded units.
Table 9 shows the percentage of housing units that are overcrowded. Renter-occupied households had a larger proportion of overcrowded households in the county.
Table 9 Overcrowding by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Overcrowded
(1+ occupants per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(1.5+ occupants per room)
Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total
St. Helena 9.26% 1.57% 4.74% 1.44% 1.01% 1.18%
Napa County 11.92% 2.99% 6.18% 3.50% 0.64% 1.66%
Source: Table B25014 Tenure by Occupants Per Room 2015-2019 ACS. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019.
3.7.12 Local Trends
Based on 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately five percent of households in St. Helena are overcrowded, compared to 6 percent for the county as a whole. As shown in Table 9,a higher proportion of renter households are overcrowded than owned households in St. Helena. Figure 43 shows the percent of overcrowded households throughout the city, no concentrated areas overcrowding of households are shown. ACS estimates indicate overcrowding is a more common housing issue for Hispanic/Latino households than White households where approximately 20 percent Hispanic/Latino households in St.
Helena are overcrowded compared to three percent of White households.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-92
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-93
Figure 42 Overcrowded Households (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-94
Figure 43 Overcrowded Households (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-95
3.7.13 Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production. Decades of disinvestment in low-income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk or experiencing homelessness.70
3.7.14 Regional Trends
The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) is an initiative out of the University of California, Berkeley that conducts data-driven research to better understand gentrification and displacement in order to generate more equitable and inclusive cities. UDP provides data to identify “sensitive communities,” communities that are vulnerable to displacement caused by housing costs or with market-based displacement pressures within or near the community. As shown in Figure 44 below, portions of the cities of Napa and Calistoga are identified as sensitive communities by UDP. These communities are also more racially/ethnically diverse and have lower household median income compared to other areas of the county.
3.7.15 Local Trends
UDP did not identify any areas within St. Helena that are considered vulnerable to displacement, as shown in Figure 45. However, research from the University of California Berkeley indicates that 42.0 percent of households in St. Helena live in neighborhoods susceptible to or experiencing displacement. 70 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-96
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-97
Figure 44 Sensitive Communities (Napa County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-98
Figure 45 Sensitive Communities (St. Helena)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-99
4. Local Area of Knowledge
The AFFH analysis identified the eastern portion of St. Helena as generally experiencing more fair housing issues than other areas of the city. Fair housing issues in this area include higher levels of minority populations, low and moderate median income, overpayment of housing, higher median rent, and lower economic and environmental outcomes. The predominant population in this area of the city is White, however it has the highest non-White population of all areas within the city. Additionally, this area has a higher proportion of persons living with a disability compared to other areas. Overall, the eastern portion of the city is a moderate resource area, the same as the rest of the city. Some factors that could play into the trends seen in the data could be the location of existing retirement and older adult living facilities. The population living within these communities are, many time, fixed income and more often single-headed households. In addition, most of the city’s high density land use and housing is located in this eastern portion of the city, which tends to be the housing type most affordable to lower income residents and single-parent households. As part of the Housing Element, the City is committing to improving the number of affordable units city-wide. In addition, with the recently adopted General Plan, the city envisions the redevelopment of Main Street within the eastern portion of the city with new, mixed-use development to increase economic opportunities and investments in this area.
4.1 Local Actions and Policy Efforts
In 2018, the City funded the 2018 St. Helena Housing Update Report, a housing analysis study that identified contributing factors to housing challenges in St. Helena. The report identified that residents believe new housing development primarily occurs east of Highway 29, however according to the report the majority of new construction was located west of Highway 29. In addition, the report also identified community opposition as a challenge to housing development in the city, leading to delays and increased project costs. Community members often desire to maintain the rural character of the city and are very concerned with how new development will impact surrounding neighborhoods.71 In October of 2020, the City Council adopted the Resolution 2020-105: Affirming that Discrimination and Systemic Racism Constitute A Public Health Crisis Causing Disparities in Mental Wellbeing, Language Access, Housing, Economic Development, Health, and Criminal Justice Experience, and Reaffirming Its Commitment to Advancing Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in the City. This resolution commits the City to erasing barriers to opportunities to minority populations, including housing. The Staff Report to City Council for Resolution 2020-105 recommends actions to address racial equity and social justice in the community, including providing Spanish translation for City Council and Planning Commission meetings, provide all City communication in Spanish and reviewing adopted by other cities that promote inclusivity and access to affordable housing.
71 2018. St. Helena Housing and Community Report.
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3395/staff_rep ort-white_paper.pdf
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-100
The City also prepared a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategy to outline the City’s efforts towards diversity, equity and inclusion, and social justice. The strategy includes actions such as creating a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee to discuss topics, including housing and racial justice, and offering live Spanish interpretation for regular and special City Council and Planning Commission meetings. The City continues to provide Spanish interpretation for City Council and Planning Commission meetings.
4.2 Stakeholder Input
The City held three housing workshops to receive feedback from the community on housing issues and the Housing Element Update (on September 16, 2021, January 20, 2022, and March 16, 2022). During these workshops, participants frequently brought up concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing for lower income households and the “missing middle” as well as the need to support affordable home ownership.
AFFH related concerns included the high cost of housing, transportation accessibility, ADU trends (specifically that ADUs tend to be utilized as vacation rentals and not housing).
4.2.1 Other Relevant Factors
Other factors to fair housing issues in St. Helena that have not been previously discussed in this analysis include lack of sufficient housing for farmworkers, availability of affordable units in a range of sizes, access to transportation, access to home ownership. These contributing factors limit the accumulation of wealth and access to housing resources in historically marginalized communities.
4.2.2 Farmworker Housing
An estimated between 6,000 and 9,000 farmworkers are employed Napa County. Sufficient affordable housing options are lacking for farmworkers who are often lower income and have special housing needs, such as seasonal housing. The number of farmworkers employed in St. Helena is unknown, however the city’s central location with regard to vineyards and wineries throughout the county would imply a number of farmworkers are employed in proximity to the city.
4.2.3 Access to Transportation
St. Helena’s public transportation system is operated by Vine Transit which operates one bus route (Route 10) in the city. Route 10 has four stops in the city, however all four stops are along the main road, State Route 29. Areas of the city located further north or south are more than 0.25 miles from a bus stop. This bus route connects the City of Napa and the City of Calistoga where connections to destinations further north or south can be made. Residents who live or work in St. Helena have limited options for traveling via public transit, potentially limiting their housing options.
4.2.4 Access to Home Ownership
Increasing housing costs has produced a barrier to home ownership for St. Helena residents. As of December 2020, Zillow reported typical home values in St. Helena were estimated at $1,665,790, much Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-101
higher than the typical home value in Napa County, which is estimated at $768,410. Typical home values reflect the value of homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. Home values have been consistently on the rise since 2000 (with the exception of the recession). This trend has made it more difficult for residents, especially lower income residents, to afford homes. Affordable housing projects in the city generally consist of rental units, which do not provide opportunities for lower income residents to own homes.
Mortgage application filing and acceptance data from 2018-2019 indicates there are racial/ethnic disparities among homeownership opportunities for residents in Napa County. As shown in Figure 46, 64 percent of White, Non-Hispanic applicants and 50 percent of Hispanic/Latinx had their loan originated, compared to 36 percent of Asian/ API applicants, 0 percent of Black/African American, and 0 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native applicants.
Figure 46 Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files
4.2.5 Opposition to New Development
According to the 2018 St. Helena Housing Update Report, city residents are “deeply concerned with maintaining the rural character of town” and therefore residents generally oppose housing projects that are perceived to changing neighborhood character. Many previous and ongoing multi-family housing projects 8% 6%
33%
9%
100%
17%
17% 16%
67%
18%
11%
17%
16%
36% 8%
6%
36%
64%
50%
57%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API,
Non-Hispanic
Black or
African
American,
Non-Hispanic
White, NonHispanicHispanic or
Latinx
Unknown
Loan Applications
Application approved but not accepted Application denied Application withdrawn by applicant File closed for incompleteness Loan originated
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-102
have been met with comments and concern from community members regarding environmental impacts, such as increases in water demand and increases in traffic as well as impacts to existing neighborhoods and community character.
4.2.6 Location of New Housing
Some residents of the city feel the city is segregated between east and west of Main Street, where the west side of the city consists of a greater percentage of White, affluent residents while the east side of the city has a greater percentage of non-White and low-income residents. In addition, residents have stated that the multi-family housing in the city is located in the eastern area. According to the 2018 St. Helena Housing Update Report, the majority of new construction over the last 10 years has been west of Highway 29.72 The Magnolia Oaks housing development consists of 44 multi-family housing units, 10 of which are affordable to low-income residents. While this project is located just west of Highway 29, other recently multi-family projects have been constructed on the east along McCorkle Avenue. The City is in the process of adopting a new Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the 2040 General Plan, which would permit duplexes and triplexes within the MR District (see Program H-N). This would create additional housing choices and affordability levels in the MR Districts on the western side of the city. In addition, Programs H-BB, H-EE, and H-XXwould implement placemaking strategies to outreach and work with the more diverse and older populations living in the east due to the historic development patterns.
5.Sites Inventory Analysis
5.1 Opportunity Areas
HCD and TCAC opportunity maps identify areas throughout the state whose characteristics support positive economic (low poverty, high employment, high median household income), educational (reading and math proficiency, high school graduation rates, low student poverty rates), and environmental outcomes (low exposure to pollution). A census tract with a designation of high resource would indicate there are strong educational and economic opportunities, meaning opportunity for current and future residents.
According to the 2022 TCAC Opportunity Map, the entire city is considered an area of moderate resource.
However, the eastern portion of the city has a higher percentage of non-White residents, lower household median income., higher percentage of cost burden among renters and owners, and less positive economic and environmental outcomes compared to the rest of the city. These demographic And socio-economic patterns influenced the locations of potential lower income sites in the city. 72 Erica Skylar. 2018. St. Helena Housing Update Report. https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3395/staff_rep ort-white_paper.pdf
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-103
5.2 Improved Conditions
According to the 2022 TCAC Opportunity Map, the entire city is considered an area of moderate resource.
Demographic and socio-economic spatial patterns show that census blocks with low- and moderate-income households, greater Hispanic/Latino populations, and higher rates of housing problems are located throughout the eastern half of the city. Sites that accommodate housing unit densities appropriate for lower-income units are scattered around the city. Sites that can accommodate most of the lower income units are located in the western and southern part of the city, which has a higher household median income and more positive economic and environmental outcomes. Approximately 38 percent of the total proposed units and 36 percent of the proposed lower-income units planned for in the sites inventory (Appendix B) are located in the eastern part of the city, which has a higher percentage of low- and moderate-income populations and non-White residents. .
Figure 47 shows the site inventory in relation to the TCAC Opportunity Map. Sites proposed within the eastern area of the city are diverse with a mix of lower income and non-lower income sites. Lower income sites spread across the city. Site 7 (821 Pope Street) and Site 8 (882 and 886 College Avenue) have 50% lower income units and 50% moderate income units. The rest of the proposed lower income sites are 100% lower income units.
5.2.1 Exacerbated Conditions
The northern and eastern parts of the city contain block groups considered moderate resource with a higher concentration of Hispanic/Latino population, higher percent of renter occupied units, higher percentage of overpayment by residents, less positive economic outcomes, and higher pollution burden compared to the moderate and high resource areas of the city. According to California Housing Partnership data, all federal and State subsidized housing within St. Helena is in moderate resource areas in the northern and eastern portions of the city. The Sites Inventory does not exacerbate conditions in vulnerable areas of the city by identifying sites that can accommodate lower income units throughout the city. Additionally, one underutilized site was identified that could accommodate above moderate units in the eastern part of the city, which has a higher percentage of non-White residents and cost burden and lower economic and environmental outcomes.
5.2.2 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence There are no racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or affluence identified in St. Helena. However, eastern areas of the city have a larger population of Hispanic/Latino residents as well as LMI populations compared to other areas of the city. In contrast, western areas of the city have higher concentrations of White residents, higher median incomes, and lower concentration of LMI populations. Sites feasible for lower income housing were identified in these affluent areas.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-104
5.2.3 Access to Opportunity
The city is categorized into 2 census tracts, both of which are considered moderate resource. Housing units in the sites inventory are not disproportionately concentrated in different resource areas, and the sites identified in the eastern areas are scattered on vacant and underutilized parcels to facilitate the development of lower- and above moderate-income units.
5.2.4 Disproportionate Housing Needs
The fair housing assessment found a need for affordable housing for people with disabilities and adequate low-income households. The City incentivizes the development of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing by reducing development fees and relaxing development standards to incentivize housing development. The City may also assist in acquiring and assembling property, subsidizing on-site and off-site improvements, and assisting in relocation activities as well as clearing and demolition.
5.2.5 Subsidized Housing
In 2019, approximately 1,105 households received Housing Choice Vouchers in the County of Napa, with 10 households receiving rental assistance and 6 households on the wait list in St. Helena.73 The AFFH Data Viewer does not have data on Housing Choice Vouchers for St. Helena. 73 City of Napa Housing Authority’s Annual Report Housing Services Agreement, 2019, https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3395/2018- 2019_housing_services_annual_report.pdf
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-105
Figure 47 Location of Sites Inventory in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Figure 47 Location of Sites Inventory in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-106
This page is intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-107
6.Contributing Factors
This assessment of fair housing issues identifies factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the City of St. Helena, as shown in Table 10.
Table 10 Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factor Meaningful Action Fair housing enforcement and outreach · Lack of fair housing requirements and information provided to residents
· Outreach and communication of services
are limited to English
· Limited fair housing testing and
enforcement
· Participate in FHNV meetings, at least
once annually, to coordinate regional
responses to housing discrimination
issues (Program H-XX)
Lack of affordable housing and displacement of
residents
· Increasing rent and house/property costs
· Dominance of single family housing
· Land use and zoning laws
· Availability of affordable units in a range
of housing types
· Diversify and expand the housing stock
to accommodate the varied housing
needs of different groups (Programs H-E,
H-H, H-I, H-J, H-W, H-LL)
· Pursue down payment and mortgage
assistance resources through the
Housing Trust Fund or other resources
(such as CalHome) for local funding to
assist lower and moderate-income
residents (Program H-GG)
· Development of affordable housing on
City-owned sites (Program H-V)
· Provide by right approvals for multifamily housing projects that meet objective design and development
standards (Program H-V)
· At least once annually, provide an
information on accessory dwelling units
(ADUs) in the city, and target outreach
to residents in the high resource
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 A-108
southwest of Main Street and northeast
of Pratt Street (Program H-Q)
Concentration of lower income and minority
households in the southeastern areas of the
city
· Land use and zoning laws
· Location of existing affordable housing
· Prioritize affordable housing in high
resource areas southwest of Main Street
and northeast of Pratt Street (Program
H-V)
· Encourage construction and renting of
ADUs in high resource areas to increase
supply of variety of housing types in the
city (Programs H-I, H-R)
· Prioritize CIP in the eastern part of the
city (Program H-WW)
· Revise inclusionary housing ordinance
for more lower income units, realistic inlieu fees, workforce housing, and more on-site housing requirements (Program
H-F)
· Invest in public infrastructure projects in
low and moderate resource areas that
improve the quality of life for residents
(Program H-WW)
Limited resources for persons with
disabilities
· High cost of transportation for persons
with disabilities
· Lack of ADA compliant sidewalks
· Reduce ridership costs for VineGo
paratransit system (Program H-WW)
· Work with the County of Napa to carry
out the ADA self-Evaluation and
transition Plan to remove barriers for
persons with disabilities to facilities and
programs in Napa County (Program HWW)
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 B-1
Appendix B:
Comments on the Public Review Draft 2023-2031
Housing Element Update
The City received multiple comment letters on the Public Review Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Update.
Comments on the Public Review Draft were received between June 29, 2022, and July 30, 2022. Key changes in response to public input include revisions to various programs and the addition of a new site in the sites inventory.
Response to Comments
In response to these comments, the City has made a number of revisions to the Public Review Draft Housing Element, including:
• 1: Policy Document – Program H-Y: Corrected spelling error and added Voorhees Circle (now program H-Z).
• 1: Policy Document – Policy HE 2.5: Revised language for clarity. • 1: Policy Document – Program H-C: Urban Limit Line: Deleted program. • 1: Policy Document – Program H-J: Updated funding sources to include State and Federal programs and grants (now program H-I).
• 1: Policy Document – Program H-M: Zoning to Facilitate Higher Density Housing: Revised for clarity (now program H-N).
• 1: Policy Document – Program H-R: Affordability Requirements for ADU Incentives: Updated text to specify that a regulatory agreement is required (now program H-S). • 5. Housing Conditions – Key Findings: Added source information for the data presented in the key finding related to Cost Burden
• 5. Housing Conditions – Physical Housing Conditions: Estimated the number of homes in need of rehabilitation.
• 6. Housing Market Conditions – Affordable Home Purchase Prices: Corrected broken references to Table 15.
• 6. Housing Market Conditions – For-Sale Housing: Revised note on Table 15 to clarify that 2021 data was used.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 B-2
• 11. Housing Resources – Pending and Approved Projects: Revised Table 36 to identify the existing unit at 963 Pope Street as deed restricted.
• 11. Housing Resources – Remaining RHNA: Revised Table 37 to fix incorrect income categorization for 963 Pope Street.
• 11: Housing Resources – Residential Sites Inventory: Added 620 McCorkle (APN 009-502-003) to the available sites inventory.
• 11. Housing Resources – Pending and Approved Projects: Revised Table 36 to identify the existing unit at 963 Pope Street as deed restricted.
• 11. Housing Resources – Remaining RHNA: Revised Table 37 to fix incorrect income categorization for 963 Pope Street.
• 11: Housing Resources – Residential Sites Inventory: Added 620 McCorkle (APN 009-502-003) to the available sites inventory.
Agenda Item #11.1.
P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org
July 26, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, City of St. Helena FROM: Jennifer La Liberte, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Housing Element Update, 2023-2031, Public Review Draft The Board of Directors of Our Town St Helena and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Housing Element Update (HEU).
General Comments
Pg 1-4 Potential Funding Sources – There does not appear to be consistency among the potential funding sources for the objectives. Some programs list specific potential sources (though the lists should be expanded) and some list only staff time. It appears this could be related to how current programs are funded. Federal, state, county, local, and private funding sources would seem appropriate for each objective that requires development and construction funding. Also, if detailed funding sources are to be included, then US Department of Agriculture Rural Development should be added.
Pg. 1-6 Throughout the document (beginning on page 1-6), much of the cited data is outdated and does not accurately reflect today’s market conditions. For example, the HEU states “typical contract rent for an apartment in St. Helena was $1,470 in 2019,” and to avoid being cost burdened, a renter would need to earn $59,160.
According to the Napa County 2021 Affordable Housing Needs Report (May 2021) produced by the California Housing Partnership, the average asking monthly rent in Napa County is $1,948 and renters need to earn $77,916 to avoid being cost burdened. Since St. Helena tends to be at the top of the market for Napa County, it’s safe to assume (and observe) that those figures are even higher. Marcus & Millchap publishes a quarterly Bay Area multi-family market report that identifies mean rents by county by unit type which would be more accurate even if not specific to St Helena. We know that a typical two-bedroom market rate unit in good condition is renting for $2,100-$2,650 plus utilities, and three-bedrooms in very good condition are at approximately $3,000 per month.
Pg.1-11 How were the specific quantified objectives derived under each of the programs and how do they relate to each other? There appears to be significant overlap in Agenda Item #11.1.
P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org
these objectives. Example: farmworker housing and very low-income housing could be the same housing; senior housing could be incorporated into a lowincome project. The Quantified Objectives Summary Table on 1-40 page provides the totals but not the logic in how the quantities were broken out.
Pg. 1-17 “The City will explore possible incentives for building attached market rate housing units for rent and for sale” which is great, but it ought not take five years to explore incentives. And what action comes after exploration? Similarly, why will it take four years to study potential modifications to the Zoning Code to facilitate higher density housing, etc., when the City is already updating the Zoning Code and the HE and should be fairly versed in what changes are needed? Is it possible to make incremental changes? For example, an immediate step the City could take is to remove the conditional use permit requirement in multi-family zones to streamline the process for developers.
changed hands are also at-risk for conversion.
Pp. 2-23 Beginning on page 2-23, Joe is Joe McGrath, Jordan is Jordan Bentley, Mary Stevenson is Mary Stephenson, John is John Sales, Jennifer Le Liberte is Jennifer La Liberte, and Steve is Steve Goldfarb.
for Napa County, the comma is in the wrong place.
these units which comprise 17.4 percent of the housing stock. If the rental vacancy rate is 3.1 percent and ownership vacancy rate is 5.3 percent, what constitutes the delta (17.4 minus 3.1 minus 5.3)?
40 to 80 years old correlate with the City’s preservation goals?
which is providing listing prices, not value. Based on current listings in St. Helena, $1.6 million is at the lower end of the range. Local realtors could provide updated Agenda Item #11.1.
P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org
MLS data which would be timelier and more accurate than Zillow. Also, within this section it is not clear whether existing deed-restricted units are included in totals of rent/homeownership units and monthly cost. It could be that these incomequalified units are affecting the total values. Could this be made more explicit?
sentence and middle of the second sentence that don’t make sense.
figures for 2022, so the footnote to the table should be adjusted accordingly.
a very low and low income; OTSH purchased in June 2021 and recorded 55-year deed restrictions. Also, Grayson Apartments were funded privately through the inclusionary requirements met by 632 McCorkle and references to tax credits, AHP, etc. should be removed. This is an important point because the housing crisis here will not be solved exclusively through non-profits.
restricted and should be noted.
should be moved to “lower” income.
Policies
HE 2.5 “Allow duplexes in all low-density residential zones” – please clarify whether this allowance is by right and not with a conditional use permit.
HE 4.8 “Give preference to projects providing workforce housing affordable to up to 140 percent of the AMI” – there doesn’t appear to be an implementation program associated with this policy. What preference would be given, and would it be at the expense of another affordability level?
Implementation Programs
H-A, H-NN “Concentration of sites for affordable housing” – OTSH supports the City’s efforts to ensure affordable housing sites are identified geographically throughout the city. But we caution that land is scarce, and large sites rarely become available that are suitable for multi-unit housing, and, most that do, tend to be located east of Main Street. We support incentivizing affordable housing wherever it can get Agenda Item #11.1.
P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org
built, and don’t support the City prioritizing Affordable Housing Trust Fund dollars for affordable projects in the western portion of the city at the expense of projects in the eastern portion.
H-C OTSH believes we should be planning for a more sustainable and less cardependent future. We should be exploring opportunities to increase infill density and expand height limits and reduce parking requirements. Up and in should be the focus. The block of land from south of White Sulphur Spring Creek to Grayson and west of Highway 29 and east of Crane vineyard is one of the most poorly utilized sections of the City, and we believe a housing task force could explore how to unlock the potential here. Expanding the Urban Limit Line should be the last option as it runs a great risk of negatively impacting what makes this such a great and desirable place to live with vibrant wine and tourism industries.
H-D Water and sewer access should be prioritized for both affordable and missing middle housing. Also, please define “missing middle” in terms of Area Median Income. The water neutrality requirement should be eliminated for any attached affordable and missing middle housing. The City could consider requiring other trade-offs such as no-irrigation landscaping or rain capture systems.
H-J “ADU Workforce Housing Incentive Program” -- broaden the potential funding sources to include grants, state and federal programs. Also, consider working with the County Assessor to allow a property tax reduction on the larger property in exchange for 30-year a deed restriction on an ADU, with proper monitoring to ensure compliance.
H-M OTSH believe the City should immediately remove the Conditional Use Permit requirement on MDR Zoning. At a minimum, it should be removed for any parcel identified in the HE as a Housing Opportunity Site. Discretionary review is the toehold for opposition to these projects and makes developers wary of taking the significant financial risk that is required for this type of development. Also, consider allowing deed restrictions for missing middle projects (as defined by the City) and in exchange grant fee waivers and eliminate the housing impact fee requirement.
H-P We should not incentivize ADUs beyond existing state mandates unless they have a deed restriction and rental occupancy requirements in exchange. While this may be implied it isn’t clearly stated.
Agenda Item #11.1.
P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org
H-R, H-DD “Affordability requirements for ADU incentives; reduced fees for affordable housing” – these should include a reference to the mechanism that will restrict affordability (i.e., affordable housing regulatory agreement).
H-S “Illegal housing units” – these types of policies or programs can be double edged as they often end up displacing households that cannot afford to live in legal units.
Consider a companion program that sees to support households displaced by this program.
H-U Under Objectives – “Support the development of 3 multi-unit housing projects….support the development of five infill projects….” What does “support” mean? As written it implies a maximum the City will “support” during the planning period.
H-?? Under Goal 3, Conservation of Existing Housing – consider adding an implementation program: “The City will work to obtain CDBG or other available funds to create an ‘Affordable Housing Conservation Fund’ so units can be acquired quickly when they hit the market and preserved at affordable levels.” H-Z “Vacation Rentals” – the City should consider prohibiting vacation rentals in certain zoning districts if it hasn’t already.
H-FF “Affordable Homeownership” – the City should work with the County’s Proximity Housing Program to provide down payment assistance to St. Helena first-time home buyers. If the County is amenable to working with the City to create a funding set-aside for St. Helena, the City could then market the program or work with others to do so.
H-II “Housing Coordinator” – this is an immediate need, and a specified time frame is encouraged rather than “ongoing”. It would be preferable to do this as a City of St Helena position, but a shared position is better than none. OTSH would prefer the City consider a Housing / Economic Development FTE rather than a lower level, part-time Housing Coordinator. Also, meeting with partner jurisdictions twice during the 13-year planning cycle does not appear to be sufficient.
Proposed Sites
Site maps It would be helpful to add a north arrow to the aerials.
Agenda Item #11.1.
P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org
develop 36 to 50 units.”
Housing Opportunity Sites
Adams Street What is the rationale for the size and placement of the Opportunity Site on the Adams Street property?
709 McCorkle This site was recently purchased and is intended to function as an estate compound. It has a low to zero probability of being developed for affordable housing.
741 McCorkle This house was recently renovated with significant capital improvements and is unlikely to be further developed in the next HE cycle.
1637 Spring This site has recently been purchased for the intent of turning it into employee housing.
Proposed site We encourage the City to add 620 McCorkle Avenue (APN 009-502-003-000) as a “key housing site”. This 0.76-acre site is zoned MDR and is currently on the market. Including it as a key housing site would eliminate the requirement for a conditional use permit and be consistent with the goal to remove barriers to development of multi-unit housing.
Conclusion
OTSH commends the City for its work on this document. Realizing that the HEU is a mandated document that needs to follow strict guidelines, we hope the City will also create an implementation plan that identifies measures, cost analysis, staff and funding resources, and time frames for meeting the goals contained herein.
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Aaron Hecock
From: LAURA KEIR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Aaron Hecock
Subject: [External] Land designation
Hi
It appears numerous parcels sent to the state to meet our quota fir homes are not currently available for sale? Are they going to be for sale? And we are not aware? Or, emanate domain enforcement would be necessary? I firmly disagree with the high to med density development of Valley View Hudson vineyard property being developed as traffic on the road is already more than a residential area should have to handle between cut threw traffic to avoid Hwy 29 to the school traffic it’s impossible to safely get out of your driveway or even ride a bike! Spring Street is narrow and I notice in addition three sites are designated as possible development.
The government/ Bay Area need to either agree to continue our exempt status. Recognize us as a primary agricultural area or the Napa Vally will be destroyed!
Laura
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.
As concerned St. Helena residents, we have read the Housing Element Update and plan to attend the public forum.
We support the city’s efforts to identify appropriate sites for potential development to provide additional housing that is badly needed. Yet af te
r
reading about proposed rezoning and adding more density, we remain vigilant in pointing out situations where multi—unitprojects would negati vely impact neighborhoods.
e have shared with several City officials the situation we face after th e recent purchase of the parcels at 1521 and 1541 Elmhurst. The owner, Jennifer Mozzetti, and her friend John Bowman, a self-described devel oper from Napa, have disrupted this peaceful neighborhood with their allege d plans to develop the parcel at 1541 Elmhurst into a multi—unitsite with “cooperation of the City.” They initially claimed, as a result of their purc hase of the two parcels, they “owned” the Elmhurst Alley from the property 1 5 2
1 extending to the end of the alley.
The city, through correspondence from Eric Janzen on 5/17/22 and sev era
l
other emails, assured us that the Elmhurst Alley was listed by the Coun ty Assessors as a public right of way and is not owned by Ms. Mozzetti.
Elmhurst Alley is a single lane, dead-end alley that extends off busy Sp rin
g
Mountain Road. It provides access to the vehicles of 5 single family ho me
s
in
addition to the mail truck, delivery trucks and home health care vehicle s
t
h
a
t
service those homes. The tightness of this alley already poses safety questions for Emergency and Fire Department vehicles.
Housin
g
Efor PublicComment
le Aaron City Senior Planner, of St.Helena
ahecoc
k@
cityofst
helena.
org
Cityof St Helena, Hall
Received
JUL1132
0 2
2 1480 Main
St Helena, CA
July 10
, Dear H
ec
o
c
k,
Agenda Item #11.1.
Any development the propert at 1541 Elmhurst from its current singley family residence tamul would beunwisead unsafe expnding the tiunit
number of alley u
s
e
r
s
.
(day finds the with street many as15
Garb
age
garbage cans as isCertai goal the of adding multi—unit housing inSt !)nly, Helena is a lauda
ble
one b
, ut drop tonew amulti-unit project already anin
dense neighborho
od
wit limited access from asingle-lane, blind aley, would h be ill-conceived.
2. Can individu
als,
see todevelop multi-unit housing ontheir own
kin
g
properties appl
y
tbeinclude onthis site list?
od
Ifthe answer is either question, tokindly we arequest site visit, in person, by a m
e
m
be
r
ofthe Planning Commission, sothate impact of
will beobvious.
Our specific qu
est
io
ns
are hope these w you can answer:
1.The Housing mentions aninventory possible ofsites, yet no public, that mi
gh
t
beused dvelop tomore housing.
is the parcel atElmhu currently onthis site or list being rst considered?
Sincerely
_
yours,
Dayna Van Kleeck
1800 Spring Mountai
n
C
o
u
rt
/‘
/
H n Ki . 1781 Spri
ng
MRoad
ou
nta
in
-/A ' Susan Ki
stl
ei
1781 S
p
ri
n
g
Moun Road
tain
ad
di
ng
more housing and residents onAlley Elmhurst
Agenda Item #11.1.
Lampkin
777 Spring Mou
ntain
Roa
d
Terence Ford
1806 Spring Mou
ntain
Cour
t
Vlad
ymer
DeLevi 1809 Mounta Court
in
Brenda Hill
1777 pri inRoad
Polin
a1809 Mounta Court
in
Ka F0
1806Mountai Court
n Agenda Item #11.1.
Iv Polina D
eL
ev
i
1809 Spr
ing
Court Mo
unt
ain
Kat r
y
n
Fo
rd 1806 Court Mount
ain
Teren
ce
Fo
rd 1806 Court Mounta
in
Jim L
a 1777 Road Mount
ain
Brend
a
H
ill 1777 Road Mount
ain
VIad
ymér 1809
\De —
Levi
Mountai Court
n Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Aaron Hecock
From: Nancy Dervin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 3:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; CityCouncil; Aaron Hecock Subject: Re: [External] Public Review Draft Housing Element Available Now! Dear HCD,
I am concerned about the City of St. Helena putting forth a Housing Element Draft that contains at least one property that the City has repeatedly been told is absolutely not available which is 601 Pope Street. There are other properties on the Draft that are also potentially not available but this one site is positively not available.
We have a huge housing shortage problem, like most communities. Knowingly including unavailable sites is unethical as well as contrary to the purpose of identifying housing opportunity sites.
What should be or can be done about this?
Sincerely,
Nancy Dervin
St. Helena, CA
From: St. Helena Housing Element <[email protected]> on behalf of St. Helena Housing Element <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 10:31 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Review Draft Housing Element Available Now!
CITY OF ST. HELENA
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Aaron Hecock
From: Mary Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 12:54 PM
To: Aaron Hecock
Subject: [External] Housing sites
I wanted to comment on the list of potential sites for housing that was in the St Helena Star. I’ve taken the time to look at each of the addresses mentioned. With the exception of one, I found all of them viable locations. My one exception is the vineyard location on Spring St.
One of the things that makes St Helena unique are the vineyards still scattered within the city. They are a part of our heritage, displaying the agriculture that has made this valley the world class jewel that it is. Please allow this one to remain as it is.
Respectfully, Mary Wilson
Sent from my iPad
Mary Wilson
1426 Kearney St.
St. Helena, Ca. 94574
707‐529‐4406
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Aaron Hecock
From: Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 12:12 PM
To: Aaron Hecock
Cc: Mary Stephenson; Maya DeRosa; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy; Jennifer La Liberte; Jordan Bentley; Joe Mcgrath
Subject: [External] Re: [External] A Potential New Opportunity Site Aaron:
Thanks.
Speaking as a private citizen and neighboring property owner (and concurring with Mary as an OTSH Board member), I would also advocate that this lot [620 McCorkle ‐ APN 009‐502‐003‐000] be added to this HE cycle as a "Housing Opportunity Site".
In light of the recent multi‐family developments on that street I would recommend however that it remain MDR, otherwise it may cause too much opposition with residents on the south side of McCorkle.
The goal would be to eliminate conditional use requirements which become, as you know, major entanglements in entitlement.
However, as MDR it should be explicitly listed under 17.40.020 Permitted Uses (N):
N. Multiple-family dwellings, apartments, and dwelling groups at a density up to the maximum allowed by the medium density residential district shall be allowed as a permitted use on the following MR zoned parcels, which are identified as “Key Housing Sites” in Table 42 of the city’s 2015-2023 housing element, and are identified as follows by street address and assessor’s parcel number (APN): 567 Pope St. APN 009-070-002; 591 McCorkle Ave. APN 009-070-003; 1817 Spring St. APN 009-322-009; Sulphur Springs Ave. APN 009-362- 015; Spring St. APN 009-441-023 and 009-552-002; 576 Pope St. APN 009-552-003; 1105 Pope St. APN 009- 090-003. (Ord. 17-2 § 6 (part); Ord. 16-8 § 1; Ord. 15-2 § 7 (part): Ord. 12-2 § 6: Ord. 07-5 § 2 (part): Ord. 05-4 § 1 (part): Ord. 03-4 § 11: prior code § 27.51)
Please confirm that the above constitutes "public comment".
Thx,
Joe
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 10:13 AM Aaron Hecock <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Mary,
You can certainly make a public comment requesting that it be included as a housing opportunity site. We're holding a joint Planning Commission & City Council meeting on July 21st from 3‐5 pm to take public comment on the public review draft of the Housing Element Update and to receive direction on proceeding. You can comment in writing beforehand, verbally during the meeting, or both.
Kindly,
Aaron
Agenda Item #11.1.
1 Aaron Hecock
From: Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:41 PM
To: Aaron Hecock; Maya DeRosa
Subject: [External] HE Draft Input
Aaron/Maya:
Here are some additional comments/inputs re: Housing Element. Please do not take them as criticism of your hard work.
The Housing Element can be a valuable tool to accomplish our municipal housing objectives if we shape it correctly.
Thanks,
Joe
General Comments:
* Current planning meetings should be held in person with a zoom option. It should no longer be acceptable that public meetings are held entirely by Zoom. It also should not be acceptable that participants to Zoom meetings have no idea how many other participants are present, and, if participants "opt‐in" to identify themselves, are identified. * The document and the process are too long, too bureaucratic, and not specific enough with respect to immediate and effective actions and policy changes that will alter the climate in any meaningful way to have a real near‐term impact on affordable or missing middle housing.
* The document itself is outdated with may reference to data as far back as 2019 representing "current" data. We lived in a far different world than in 2019.
* A major flaw in the Housing Element process for Above Moderate or Market Rate units. Our State Legislators did not comprehend second home or vacation communities.
So meeting the HE RHNA objective for Above Moderate by enabling, say, the Hunter Project is nonsensical if say 50% of the SFHs ultimately become vacation homes.
Having these types of development consume constrained water, sewer and other valuable resources can impinge on more critical housing needs.
Specific Section / Page Comments:
H‐C We should be planning for a more sustainable and less car‐dependent future. We should be exploring opportunities to increase infill density and explore expanding height limits, and reduce parking requirements. Up and In should be the focus. The block of land from south of White Sulphur Spring Creek to Grayson and West of Highway 29 and east of Crane vineyard is one of the most poorly utilized sections of the City. We should unleash a task force to see if we can unlock Agenda Item #11.1.
2 potential here. Expanding the Urban Limit Line should be our last option, and runs great risk of negatively impacting what makes this such a great and desirable place to live with a vibrant wine industry and tourism economy.
H‐D. Water and sewer access should be prioritized for both affordable and missing middle. Also please define "missing middle" in terms of AMI %. 200%? Water Neutrality Requirement should also be eliminated for any attached affordable and missing middle. Mandate no‐irrigation landscaping instead. All new buildings in CA are highly water efficient by California Building Code. It is better that we have new stock than old stock re: environmental sustainability (similar to newer car fleet vs. older regarding emissions).
H‐M. It should not take 4 more years following 3 years working on the Housing Element to understand what Zoning Ordinances need to be changed to enable housing.
1) Start with removing the Conditional Use Permit requirement in some manner on MDR Zoning. At minimum, it should be reduced for any parcel identified in Housing Element as Housing Opportunity Site (not just Key Housing Opportunity Site") . It is imperative to reduce or eliminate "discretionary" review. Discretionary review is the toehold for opposition on these projects. It is also a toehold for CEQA opposition. 2) Define "Missing Middle" in terms of AMI. 200%?
3) Tradeoff off 2:1 (or some such ratio) of affordability requirements on private developers for below moderate units for moderate to missing middle (200%) cutoff units. Ie a developer can meet "affordable" designation if he/she builds (2) deed‐restricted moderate to missing middle (80‐200%AMI?) units for every (1) required < moderate unit (<80% AMI unit).
4) Eliminate Water Neutrality requirements for above. This is just one more hurdle. 5) Eliminate Housing Impact Fees for above. By very nature these projects are having a POSITIVE housing impact. 6) Reduce overall permit fee structure for above. (on page 2‐142 it calculates 12.3% of multi‐family costs on Permits & Fees. This is right after it the HE states that governmental constraints are not a factor? ) Pg 1‐15:
H‐J. What can we do to entice existing ADUs into a deed‐restricted affordable? How about a tradeoff on property tax relief on that unit for 30‐yr deed‐restriction and rental occupancy rate compliance?? Pg 1‐19:
H‐P. We should not further incent ADUS beyond existing state mandates unless they have deed‐restriction and rental occupancy requirements in exchange.
Pg 1‐29:
H‐II. What are the accountabilities of the Housing Coordinator? Why would we not do this under existing Departments? Pg 1‐34:
H‐UU. We should be considering "no‐irrigation" landscaping (at least after plants take hold).
We should eliminate the Water Neutrality Requirement on any deed‐restricted affordable < 200% AMI. This is a cumbersome and complex and expensive requirement to comply with. New attached buildings under CBC are highly water efficient and perform well below 65 GPD per capita. Nix the irrigated landscaping as a tradeoff.
Pg 2‐38:
HE1.B. This document indicates that because units have been built in last cycle that Growth management System was not an obstacle. This is untrue. 632 McCorkle was "lucky" in that we straddled two years and literally consumed (8) of the (9) available allocation. Had this been a 10 unit project, it is not clear what the City would have done. Had there Agenda Item #11.1.
3 been another similar project, it is unclear what the city would have done. Uncertainty is the enemy of Investment and the friend of Risk.
Pg 2‐103
Table 16 ‐ Grayson Apartment 2 units funding source were not Tax Credits, nor AHP, nor RHCP, nor City funded. These two units were funded privately through inclusionary requirements on 632 McCorkle. This is an important point, because we will not solve the housing crisis here exclusively through non‐profits.
Pg 2‐125:
Saying that Building Codes and Zoning Ordinances are not a "governmental constraint" to development is an entirely untrue statement and somewhat offensive coming from a government agency. While I would not argue that enhancements in the California Building Code are in most cases warranted, they have most definitely affected housing costs and housing production and have contributed to the shortage of affordable housing stock. Enhancements to CBC in ADA, Seismic, Fire, and Environmental requirements have played a significant role in the increase in housing costs. This must be acknowledged. As for Fire Code, nearly all of the costs in the building code are for suppression systems to extinguish a fire that starts inside the building. Most homes in CA are destroyed by fire from outside the building.. The CBC however is very clear and the requirements do not have broad interpretation, so while costly to comply with, is not a great impediment.
Zoning Ordinances however and discretionary reviews are something entirely different. Developers do not like uncertainty. If a Zoning Ordinance can be interpreted differently by different people ‐ that is problematic. And if the outcome of a Design Review Meeting may be different based on the makeup of a Commission that is problematic.
Developers do not like uncertainty. This is why discretionary reviews are highly problematic. To bring a complete application to Design Review Submission ‐ let's say 8‐12 units ‐ could easily require an investment of $250K. Surveys, Civil Plans, Arch Plans, Elec Plans, Plumbing Plans, Mechanical Plans, etc. This all with the possibility of project Denial.
Lastly. CEQA is a major governmental constraint and should be acknowledged as such. CEQA should have no role in infill projects within ULL unless special circumstances warrant. 2‐132:
We should articulate what Design Review is "not". For projects that are entitled, Design Review has no function in determining whether a project can be built or not to its entitlement. It would be much preferable to establish objective design guidelines that should be followed for multi‐family rather than subject applications to a highly subjective process. 2‐138:
Parking requirements for 2 Bedrooms within the ULL should be reduced to 1.5 spaces for <200% AMI.
Housing Opportunity Sites Input
For the sites listed, the probability that any given site gets developed in the next HE cycle range between 0% and 95% (Phelps Site). Most sites identified have a low probability (< 10%?) chance of being developed. 709 McCorkle: This site has recently been purchased and is intended to function as an estate compound. 741 McCorkle: This house has been recently renovated with significant capital improvements, and is unlikely to be further developed in this HE cycle.
1637 Spring Street: This site has recently been purchased for the intent of turning it into employee housing. My understanding is that the current plan is to convert 1 BRs into 2 BRs through garage conversion.
Agenda Item #11.1.
4 620 McCorkle: Per prior inputs, this site should be added to the Housing Opportunity Site and Key Housing Opportunity Site list.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Saint Helena Housing Coalition, Inc.
PO Box 988
Saint Helena, CA 94574
July 13, 2022
Mr. Aaron Hecock, AICP Senior Planner
City of Saint Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
Saint Helena, Ca 94574
RE: 2023-2031 Housing Element Draft
VIA: Email
Dear Mr. Hecock:
First of all ,we would like to thank you for the this very through and professional work product. It is obvious that much research and attention to detail has been taken.
A question. Under the Water Section it is stated that “although the maximum amount of (Bell Canyon) water that is available to the City is 992 acre-feet”. Why? In Section 11. Housing Resources -Future Housing Needs we note the following:
The City must ensure the availability of residential sites at adequate densities and appropriate development standards to accommodate these units by income category.(Emphasis added).
Based upon our work in attempting to find suitable land for new “affordable” Essential worker housing our experience, in part, differs from the report’s conclusions:
Regarding the City owned Adams Street parcel considerable thought should be given to identifying the Eastern most portion of the parcel, not the Western end for “affordable” housing. SHHC submitted as preliminary site plan so indicating. Thus, leaving the West end for a potential city hall location or other civic functions. To us, it does not make sense to place any type of affordable” housing at the West end.
Site 4: 905 Main Street. When SHHC made inquiries, we were informed that the owner expressed that this for-sale price of this parcel would exceed $1,000,000. Given the suggested density of five units that would make the land cost per unit $200,000. For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be nearer to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible.
Site 7: 81 Pope Street. Zillow estimates that the current price for this property is approximately $2,000,000. Again, that would work out to a land cost of $100,000 per unit of the projected 20 “affordable Units (to say nothing of the cost of demolishing the existing structure). . For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be near to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Site 9: 1447 and 1515 Spring Street. The Zillow estimated sales price for each of the existing residences at $1.6mm to $1.75mm, totally $3.35mm in value. For the estimated 24 units that works out to a land cost of $139,583.00 per unit. For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be near to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible.
Site 10: Spring Street between Hudson Avenue & Valley View. From my notes during the public comment portion, I believe it was Joe McGrath who said that this property had recently been sold and lease-back on a long-term basis. Based upon that it would appear this parcel is not currently available.
Site 11: 601 Pope Street. This property owner declined SHHC’s to acquire this parcel under a long-term lease. We offered $200,000 per year for a sixty-five-year lease and their response was “oh, we just like the way it looks”.
Site 12: 1637 Spring Street. As recently as this spring this property owner expressed No interest, and the direct quote was “let them try and develop it.” Therefore, Mr. Hecock, unless that City is prepared to use Eminent Domain as in Kelo v.
New London, it appears that the identified sites does not fulfill the “must” requirement of available sites to satisfy Saint Helena’s 2023-2031 RHNA requirements.
Respectfully submitted:
Rick Crebs
Rick Crebs, CEO
[email protected]
707-580-0418
Agenda Item #11.1.
Saint Helena Housing Coalition, Inc.
PO Box 988
Saint Helena, CA 94574
July 25, 2022
Mr. Aaron Hecock, AICP Senior Planner
City of Saint Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
Saint Helena, Ca 94574
RE: 2023-2031 Housing Element Draft
VIA: Email
Dear Mr. Hecock:
Again, we would like to thank you for leading this sixth Housing Element 2023-2031 document incredibly rich document full of quite important and relevant data.
However, we have some considerable concerns over facts stated and conclusions reach:
Issue #1:
In this report you state “The Housing Element must also identify adequate residential sites available for a variety of housing types for all income levels; provide assistance in developing adequate housing to meet the needs of lowand moderate-income households; address governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing; conserve and improve the condition of the existing stock of affordable housing; and promote housing opportunities for all persons”. (Aaron Hecock-Report to the City Council & Planning Commission Meeting -21 July 2022, page 4) (Emphasis added).
Response #1A:
Not being lawyers we referred to recognized authorities on the words contained in the above Issue #1.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Ensure – “We define ensure as "to make sure, certain, or safe" and one sense of insure, "to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions," is quite similar. But insure has the additional meaning "to provide or obtain insurance on or for," which is not shared by ensure.” Certain – Ascertained; precise; identified; definitive; clearly known; unambiguous; or in law, capable of being identified or made known, without liability or to mistake or ambiguity, from data already given.”
Realistic- means “based upon what is real rather than on what is wanted or hoped for” Real – means “having objective independent existence; not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory; being precisely what the name means; occurring or existing in actuality” Black’s Legal Dictionary:
Adequate means “Sufficient; proportionate; equally sufficient; equal to what is required; suitable to the case or occasion; satisfactory”
Availability Means “This phrase, among mercantile men, is a term well understood to be anything which can readily be converted into money; but it is not necessarily or primarily money.” Agenda Item #11.1.
Ready means “Prepared for what one is about to do or experience; equipped or supplied with what is needed for some act or event; prepared for immediate movement or action”(Emphasis added) Demonstrate means “to prove indubitably”
Indubitable Proof “Evidence of which is not only found creditable but is of such weight and directness as to make out the facts alleged beyond a doubt.” Must “This word, like the word ‘shall’ is primarily of mandatory effect.” Based upon the above definitions SHHC is perplexed as to how the Housing Element can, in good conscience, or on any legal basis include 601 Pope Street or 1837 Spring Street as both owners have stated that they are not interested.
I just spoke to the owner who has been a dear friend of our families for 37 years and she stated ,“No one contacted me and further had no interest in allowing their back acreage to be developed into ‘affordable’ housing.”? Response #1B:
During the public comment section of the July 21m, 2022 2023-31 Zoom Housing Element, Rick Crebs, from SHHC, raised the issue of financial feasibility of Sites #4, 905 Main Street is stating “When SHHC made inquiries, we were informed that the owner expressed that this for-sale price of this parcel would exceed $1,000,000. Given the suggested density of five units that would make the land cost per unit $200,000. For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be nearer to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible”.
Similar financial analysis was also offered on Site #7 821 Pope Street, (land costs of $100,000 per unit); Site #9 1447 & 1515 Spring Street, (land costs of $139,583 per unit).
Based upon that information provided during the Housing element Zoom meeting of Thursday, July 21, 2022, a question was directed by a city council member to the city’s staff relative to the property valuations statements raised by Rick Crebs of SHHC on valuations attributed to Zillow. The response was questioned of the authenticity of the Zillow valuations. This seems odd in that the Housing Element report refers to Zillow eight (8) times as the authority on real estate valuations.
It was further stated that grants or low interest loans would off set the high land costs.
Please allow SHHC to provide a current financial analysis as present in SHHC’s Offer to Develop 88 Units (using
2.3 acres at the East end of the Adams Street city owned parcel).
Use of Grants: Adams Street as an example:
Total Construction Costs $43,116,112 or average of $489,956 per unit (Leased, not sold land) Funding necessary to complete this project: (Projected) City/County $2,000,000 (4.4%)
Other Grants $32,337,084 (75.0%)*
Mortgage or Bond $ 7,054,364 (16.40%)
Total $43,116,112 100% (rounded)
*The largest grants that SHHC has been able to discover are from the California Department of Housing Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grants which currently has a maximum grant amount of Agenda Item #11.1.
$35mm, so the Adams Street project comes close to it. This information is supplied to illustrate the extreme difficulty present in realistically financing the Saint Helena community to provide the “Must” in the RHNA requirement.
Issue #2:
In this report you state “The issue of owner consent to being included on the housing opportunity sites list has come up on several occasions. Being listed as a housing opportunity site in no way terminates or otherwise affects existing uses on-site. Furthermore, there are currently no legislative or other means to compel a private property owner in this process, meaning we cannot force or otherwise require that they build housing. That said, owner consent is not a requirement for inclusion in the housing opportunity sites inventory (Government Code 65583.2).
The inventory is to show that there are suitable sites to meet the City’s RHNA and the programs are there to help housing developers to make that happen. Designating sites as suitable for housing falls within the City's authority to regulate land uses. If the Housing Element were to designate an already developed site.” Response to #2:
Mr. Hecock, it is true that California government Code does not include language requiring “owners Consent”. but, by the same logic, it does not exclude requiring the “owners’ consent.” This, it would seem that your comment is non-responsive. Further, Code 65583.2 refers to Government code 65583 which, in part, states “(3) An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for development during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. (Emphasis added).
Further, in referring to the word definitions provided above, that the proposed Saint Helena Housing 2023-2031 Document on a factually basis fails to meet with any degree of accuracy of the meanings of the authenticated meaning of the words; Adequate, Available, Demonstratable, Ensure, and Must.
In closing, such vagueness in the prior Housing Element Reports may have been tolerated in the past. However, our town is critically deficient in sufficient “affordable” housing for all AMI’s. The fact that so many are required to commute to work in the Upper Valley each day clearly contributes to unnecessary Green Housing Gas (GHG) emissions to say nothing of the cost to commute which further contributes multiple well vetted studies that conclude that the majority of those renting are cost burdened. Many in the 50-60% of household income! Lastly, the lack of a strategy to affirmatively address Saint Helena’s housing crisis is to deny, or turn its back, on its pledge to work towards a policy of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
Our town can no longer rely upon the old “Three Card Monty Trick” in addressing the statutory issues the Housing Element requires.
SHHC’s First Suggestion:
The city should consider removing Sites 4 (905 Mains Street, Ste 7 (821 Pope Street, Ste 9 1447 & b1515 Springs Street as being financially unrealistic due to associated land costs and instead revise the Adams Street parcel from 30 unit of Lower Income to the recommendations in the following graph:
Table 50 Summary of Housing Units (Extracted)
Lower
Income Moderate Income
Above
Moderate
Income Total
Agenda Item #11.1.
Pending Projects 0 4 88 92
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Recommended Changes Site Inventory
Site 3 (Adams Street) -22 9 76 63
Site 4 (905 Mains Street) 0 0 -5 -5
Site 7 (821 Pope Street -10 -10 0 -20
Site 9 (1447 & 1515 Spring Street) -24 0 -24 -48
Totals -56 -1 47 -10
Remaining Sites (Consolidated) Site Inventory
Sites 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11,12 152 87 244 483
Color Code -Purple-Doubtful
Red - Subtractions
Green -Additions
The results reached is close to a net neutral on units for each category of AMI housing. And the inclusion of 88 units plus 50 for the OTSG/Phelps’s project equates to a realistic 54% of Saint Helena’s 2023-31 RHNA required allocation.
SHHC’s Second Suggestion:
While draconian, the only true solution SHHC sees to the significant challenges in achieving the forthcoming coming 2023-31 RHNA Site locations allocations is for the city to firmly state that it will undertake, if necessary, Eminent Domain proceeding as in the Kelvo v. New London U.S. Supreme Court Decision.
In closing, it is time to discard the Housing Element word games from the past and boldly put forth only those Opportunity Sites that are certain and available.
Respectfully submitted:
Rick Crebs
Rick Crebs, CEO
[email protected]
707-580-0418
Ccs: Anil Comelo, City Manager
Maya DeRosa, Director of Planning
Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor
Paul Dohring, Esq. Vice Mayor
Lester hardy, Esq., City Council Member
Eric Hall, City Council Member
Anna Chouteau, City Council Member
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023 General Plan Update
Addendum
prepared by
City of St. Helena
Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
Department of Planning
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April 2023
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena 2023 General Plan Update
Addendum
prepared by
City of St. Helena
Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
Department of Planning
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April 2023
Agenda Item #11.1.
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Table of Contents
Addendum i
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................3
1.1 Project Title.........................................................................................................................3
1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address.........................................................................................3
1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................3
1.4 Project Location ..................................................................................................................3
1.5 Project Description..............................................................................................................6
1.6 Environmental Review ........................................................................................................7
1.7 Discretionary Action............................................................................................................7
1.8 Prior Environmental Document(s) ......................................................................................8
1.9 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) ...................................................................8 Project Context...............................................................................................................................9
2.1 St. Helena General Plan ......................................................................................................9
2.1.1 Housing Element...............................................................................................10
2.1.2 Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element ........................................................14
2.1.3 2040 General Plan EIR.......................................................................................15 Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164...............................................................................17 Environmental Effects & Determination ......................................................................................19
4.1 Environmental Areas Determined to Have New or Substantially More Severe Significant Effects Compared to Those Identified in the Previous EIR ...............................................19
4.2 Determination...................................................................................................................19 Addendum Methodology..............................................................................................................21
5.1 2040 General Plan Consistency.........................................................................................21
5.2 Accommodation of the RHNA...........................................................................................21
5.3 Consistency with Horizon Year 2040 Projections .............................................................22
5.4 Preliminary Environmental Considerations......................................................................23 Addendum Evaluation ..................................................................................................................25
6.1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................25
6.2 Agricultural Resources......................................................................................................29
6.3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................33
6.4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................39
6.5 Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources..............................................................43
6.6 Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change.............................................................47
6.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity...........................................................................................51
6.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................55
6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................59
6.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing ..................................................................................65
6.11 Noise .................................................................................................................................69
6.12 Public Services and Recreation .........................................................................................73
6.13 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................................77 Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
ii
6.14 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................81 Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................................85 References....................................................................................................................................86 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................86 Tables
Table 1 City of St. Helena Regional Housing Needs Allocation......................................................12 Table 2 Summary of Areas of Potential Impact under the 2040 General Plan Update EIR...........15 Table 3 Housing Unit Yield per Site Category ................................................................................22 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................4 Figure 2 Project Area ........................................................................................................................5 Figure 3 Housing Element Sites Inventory Locations – Vacant and Underutilized (Nonvacant) Sites...................................................................................................................................13 Agenda Item #11.1.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Addendum iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADU Accessory dwelling unit
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP Best management practices
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
EIR Environmental impact report
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HRA Health risk assessment
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PM Particulate matter
ROG Reactive organic gas
SB Senate Bill
SHMC Saint Helena Municipal Code
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile organic compounds
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Executive Summary
Addendum 1
Executive Summary
The proposed project consists of a comprehensive update to the Housing Element of the City of St.
Helena General Plan. State law requires that housing elements be updated every eight years (California Government Code Sections 65580 to 65589.8). The project would update the City of St.
Helena Housing Element as part of the 6
th cycle of updates. For St. Helena, the planning period runs from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031. The Housing Element update identifies residential sites adequate to accommodate a variety of housing types for all income levels and needs of special population groups, defined under state law (California Government Code Section 65583). It analyzes governmental constraints to housing maintenance, improvement, and development; addresses conservation and improvement of the condition of existing affordable housing stock; and outlines policies that promote housing opportunities for all persons. The proposed project also includes revisions to the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Elements to be consistent with California law regulating evacuation routes and climate change vulnerability.
The Housing Element update establishes objectives, policies, and programs to assist the City of St.
Helena in achieving state-mandated housing goals. The City’s implementation of these policies and programs includes amendments to the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element of the General Plan and the rezoning of several sites in the inventory of potential sites for meeting the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation. No formal land use changes or physical development is proposed at this time and future changes would require environmental evaluation as potential impacts are location-specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until a project site and development proposal are identified.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65583(c)(1), these actions will be accomplished within three years of the City of St Helena’s adoption of the Housing Element update. As required by Government Code Section 65583(c)(8), the Housing Element update provides a timeline for processing each of the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other land use documents which implement the Housing Element update.
In considering the potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element update, the City determined that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for the 2040 General Plan update (2040 General Plan update Final EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2010042001) is of continuing informational value. The City also determined that the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) of the Housing Element update are within the scope of the previously certified Final EIR and that none of the conditions requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 exist. Based on the information and analysis provided below, the City determined that only minor or technical changes to the previously certified Final EIR are necessary and that that preparation of an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 is appropriate.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
2 This page intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Introduction
Addendum 3
Introduction
This document is an Environmental Impact Report Addendum that analyzes the City of St. Helena’s (City’s) proposed Housing Element update and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update Project (hereafter also referred to as the “General Plan update,” “proposed project,” or “project”).
1.1 Project Title
City of St. Helena General Plan Update
1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of St. Helena
Department of Planning
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
(707) 967-2783 x 530
1.4 Project Location
The Housing Element update planning boundaries (Plan Area) coincide with the St. Helena city limits. The area encompasses approximately 5 square miles of land in the western portion of Napa County. The city is located northwest of the City of Yountville and southeast of the City of Calistoga, surrounded by unincorporated areas of the County. State Route 29 and 121 provide regional access to the city from the north and south. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the Plan Area, and Figure 2 shows the Plan Area’s boundaries in its immediate location. In addition, the project identifies 11 vacant and underutilized sites within the city that can accommodate new housing or rezone. The vacant and underutilized sites to be studied for housing opportunities are shown broadly in Figure 3 and correspond to the list provided in the Housing Resources chapter of the needs assessment of the Housing Element update. Not all parcels have street addresses at this time.
With most of the City developed and preservation of open space a priority, all draft vacant and opportunity sites are on currently underdeveloped, underutilized, or vacant lots.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
4 Figure 1 Regional Location
Agenda Item #11.1.
Introduction
Addendum 5
Figure 2 Project Area
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
6 1.5 Project Description
The project consists of a comprehensive update to the Housing Element of the St. Helena General Plan and update to the existing Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element of the General Plan. These elements are a part of the St. Helena General Plan, which is a long-term document with text and diagrams that express the goals, objectives, and policies necessary to guide the community toward achieving its vision over approximately 20 years (i.e., 2040). The General Plan was subject to a comprehensive update as well; it underwent extensive environmental review in the form of an EIR, which was certified in 2019. The EIR for the St. Helena 2040 General Plan includes discussion of alternatives and growth inducing impacts (direct and indirect impacts) associated with urban development in the city.
State law requires that housing elements be updated every eight years (California Government Code Sections 65580 to 65589.8). The Housing Element update identifies residential sites adequate to accommodate a variety of housing types for all income levels and needs of special population groups, defined under state law (California Government Code Section 65583). It analyzes governmental constraints to housing maintenance, improvement, and development; addresses conservation and improvement of the condition of existing affordable housing stock; and outlines policies that promote housing opportunities for all persons. The project would update the City of St.
Helena Housing Element as part of the 6
th cycle of updates. For St. Helena, the planning period runs from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031.
Additionally, the Housing Element update would bring it into compliance with state legislation passed since the adoption of the 2040 General Plan and 2015-2023 Housing Element. There are multiple main components of the Housing Element update that mirror those of the previous Housing Elements, but that have been updated to reflect current conditions, including:
▪ An introduction to review the requirements of the Housing Element, public participation process, and data sources
▪ A profile and analysis of the city’s demographics, housing characteristics, and existing and future housing needs
▪ An analysis of constraints on housing production and maintenance, including market, governmental, and environmental limitations to meeting the City’s identified needs ▪ A review of resources available and results of a housing sites inventory analysis conducted to demonstrate the City of St. Helena’s ability to satisfy its share of the region’s future housing need
▪ A review of the City’s housing programs and evaluation of accomplishments under the 2013- 2021 Housing Element
▪ A Housing Plan to address the city’s identified housing needs, which identifies the City’s housing goals, policies, and implementing programs
▪ An identification of the goals, policies, and programs and the city’s quantified objectives for the 2023-2031 planning period, by income group, based on growth estimates, past and anticipated development, and income data
The Housing Element update establishes objectives, policies, and programs to assist the City in achieving state-mandated housing goals. The city’s implementation of these policies and programs includes future amendments to other elements of the General Plan and the rezoning of several sites in the inventory of potential sites for meeting the city’s RHNA obligation. Pursuant to Government Agenda Item #11.1.
Introduction
Addendum 7
Code section 65583(c)(1), these actions will be accomplished within three years of the City of St.
Helena’s adoption of the Housing Element update. As required by Government Code Section 65583(c)(8), the Housing Element update provides a timeline for processing each of the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other land use documents which implement the Housing Element update.
1.6 Environmental Review
In April 2019, the City of St. Helena certified the St. Helena 2040 General Plan update and Final EIR (City of St. Helena General Plan 2040, State Clearinghouse Number 2010042001) for an update to General Plan, including the Land Use Element. The certified Final EIR discussed the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) associated with future development allowed under the General Plan update and included a thorough analysis of the estimated build out of the City through the horizon year 2040. The EIR estimated new development for residential, commercial, office, industrial, hospital and hotel uses throughout the city and sphere of influence and evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with an estimated total buildout of 400 new dwelling units. The EIR found that, with implementation of the policies and programs contained in the General Plan and recommended mitigation measures, all impacts (direct and indirect) associated with future development under the General Plan update would be less than significant, except impacts on agricultural resources, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, and transportation and traffic which would be significant and unavoidable.
In considering the potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element update, the City determined that the EIR certified for the 2040 General Plan update is of continuing informational value. The City also determined that the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) of the Housing Element update are within the scope of the previously certified EIR and that none of the conditions requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exists. Based on the information and analysis provided below, the City determined that only minor or technical changes to the previously certified EIR are necessary and that that preparation of an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 is appropriate.
Like the 2040 General Plan update, the Housing Element update does not include any development proposal or approval and future development of any specific housing site would be subject to additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c).
1.7 Discretionary Action
Implementation of the Housing Element would require the following discretionary actions by the City of St. Helena City Council:
▪ Approval of an Addendum to the General Plan EIR
▪ Adoption of the updated Housing Element and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element In addition to the above-mentioned actions, future amendments to the St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) consistent with the implementing programs of the updated Housing Element would also be adopted by the City Council.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development reviews the proposed Housing Element in accordance with California law. No other review by outside public agencies is required.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
8 1.8 Prior Environmental Document(s)
The City of St. Helena General Plan 2040 Final EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2010042001.
1.9 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s)
The location and custodian of the City of St. Helena General Plan 2040 EIR is the City of St. Helena Planning Department, 1088 College Avenue St. Helena, CA 94574. A copy of the EIR also is available online at the City of St. Helena website: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/planning/page/2040- general-plan-update
Agenda Item #11.1.
Project Context
Addendum 9
Project Context
The project consists of a comprehensive update to the Housing Element of the St. Helena General Plan and update to the existing Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element of the General Plan (collectively referred to as “project”). These elements are a part of the St. Helena General Plan, which is a long-term document with text and diagrams that express the goals, objectives, and policies necessary to guide the community toward achieving its vision over approximately 20 years (i.e., 2040).
2.1 St. Helena General Plan
California law requires that each city and county in California adopt “a comprehensive, long-term general plan,” the purpose of which is to plan for important community issues such as new growth, housing needs, and environmental protection. Furthermore, the General Plan is used to project future demand for services such as sewer, water, roadways, parks, and emergency services. A General Plan is only successful when it reflects the priorities and values of the community and is a key tool for influencing quality of life.
City of St. Helena decision-makers (e.g., City Council and Planning Commission), rely on the General Plan as the basis for making decisions on matters such as land use and the provision of public facilities (e.g., roads, parks, fire stations). It is also a policy document that guides decisions related to protecting, enhancing, and providing those things that the community values most, such as open space, habitat conservation, economic development, and protecting the character of the community.
California law requires that every general plan, at a minimum, address certain subject categories (called “elements”), which include land use, circulation, housing, conservation of natural resources, open space, noise, safety, and environmental justice. A general plan may also address other subjects that are of importance to the community‘s future, such as sustainability, community design, and public art. St. Helena’s adopted General Plan includes the following elements which address all state-mandated elements with additional policies and actions to address Environmental Justice issues:
▪ Land Use and Growth Management
▪ Economic Sustainability
▪ Public Facilities and services
▪ Circulation
▪ Historic Resources
▪ Open Space and Conservation
▪ Public Health, Safety, and Noise
▪ Climate Change
▪ Housing
▪ Parks and Recreation
▪ Arts, Culture, and Entertainment
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
10 2.1.1 Housing Element
2.1.1.1 Purpose of the Housing Element
The Housing Element of the General Plan is designed to provide the City of St. Helena with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the community. A priority of both state and local governments, Government Code Section 65580 states that “the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.” Pursuant to the state law, the Housing Element has two main purposes:
To provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints in meeting these needs
To provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs The Housing Element is one of the eight General Plan elements the state mandates in Government Code Section 65302. The Housing Element serves as an integrated part of the General Plan but is updated more frequently to ensure its relevancy and accuracy. The City of St. Helena’s current Housing Element, adopted in 2015, identifies strategies and programs that focus on:
Conserving and improving existing affordable housing
Maximizing housing opportunities throughout the community Assisting in the provision of affordable housing
Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities
The residential character of St. Helena is largely determined by the variety, location, and maintenance of its housing. The Housing Element is an official response to the need to provide housing for all economic segments of the population, establishing goals, policies, and programs that will guide the City of St. Helena decision making and set forth an action plan to implement these housing programs through an established planning period.
2.1.1.2 Updates to the Housing Element
State law requires that housing elements be updated every eight years (California Government Code Section 65588). The Housing Element must identify residential sites adequate to accommodate a variety of housing types for all income levels and to meet the needs of special population groups as defined under state law (California Government Code Section 65583). The Housing Element analyzes market and governmental constraints to housing maintenance, improvement, and development; addresses conservation and improvement of the condition of existing affordable housing stock; and outlines policies that promote housing opportunities for all persons.
The previous Housing Element covered an eight-year planning period (January 31, 2015 through January 31, 2023), Government Code Section 65588(e).
The City of St. Helena Housing Element is now being revised as part of the 6 th cycle of updates, the
period of which runs from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031. Therefore, this update is referred to as the “Housing Element update.”
Agenda Item #11.1.
Project Context
Addendum 11
The 2023-2031 Housing Element would bring the Element into compliance with California law enacted since the City’s adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element and with the current Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG’s) RHNA. The 2023-2031 Housing Element includes the following components, as required by California law:
▪ An assessment of the City’s population, household, and housing stock characteristics, existing and future housing needs by household types, and special needs populations. ▪ An analysis of resources and constraints related to housing production and preservation, including governmental regulations, infrastructure requirements and market conditions such as land, construction, and labor costs as well as restricted financing availability. ▪ Identification of the City’s quantified objectives for the 2023-2031 RHNA and inventory of sites determined to be suitable for housing.
▪ Opportunities for Conservation in Residential Development: California law requires cities to identify opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. ▪ Review of the 2015-2023 Housing Element to identify progress and evaluate the effectiveness of previous policies and programs.
▪ A Housing Plan to address the City’s identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs to facilitate the 2023 Housing Element update (6 th Cycle).
2.1.1.3 Changes in California Law
The following items represent substantive changes to California law since the City’s last Housing Element was adopted and certified in 2015. The Housing Element update incorporated and addressed all pertinent housing law changes.
▪ Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process: Senate Bill (SB) 35 (2017) ▪ Additional Housing Element Sites Analysis Requirements: Assembly Bill (AB) 879 (2017) and AB 1397 (2017)
▪ Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: AB 686 (2017)
▪ No-Net-Loss Zoning: SB 166 (2017)
▪ Safety Element to Address Adaptation and Resiliency: SB 1035 (2018) ▪ By Right Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing: AB 2162 (2018) and B 101 (2019) ▪ Accessory Dwelling Units: AB 2299 (2016), SB 1069 (2016), AB 494 (2017), SB 229 (2017), AB 68 (2019), AB 881 (2019), AB 587 (2019), SB 13 (2019), and AB 671 (2019) ▪ Density Bonus: AB 1763 (2019)
▪ Housing Crisis Act of 2019: SB 330
▪ Surplus Land Act Amendments: AB 1486 and AB 1255 (2019) ▪ Housing Impact Fee Data: AB 1483 (2019)
▪ Emergency and Transitional Housing Act of 2019: AB 139 (2019) ▪ Standardization of Sites Inventory Analysis and Reporting: SB 6 (2019) Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
12 2.1.1.4 Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Required Buffer The Housing Element must address the City's fair share of the regional housing need (as determined by ABAG) and specific California statutory requirements. It must also reflect the vision and priorities of the local community. As of December 2021, ABAG determined a final RHNA Allocation of 256 units for the City of which 162 must be affordable to lower-income households, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 City of St. Helena Regional Housing Needs Allocation Income Category (Percent of Napa County Area Median Income) Very Low
(<50%)
Low
(50-80%)
Moderate
(80-120%)
Above Moderate
(>120%)
Total
Housing Units
RHNA Housing units 104 59 26 67 256
RHNA + 20% Buffer 121 71 31 79 302
California law requires local jurisdictions to identify enough future housing sites inventory to not only cover the jurisdiction’s 6th Cycle RHNA, but to also provide for an additional buffer capacity above the RHNA. The buffer capacity is required to accommodate realistic production rates of affordable housing units. Additionally, the buffer can allow for instances when a smaller residential project must be considered for a given property or when existing units are demolished. The “No Net Loss” Law (Government Code Section 65863) requires maintenance of sufficient sites to meet the RHNA for all income levels throughout the planning period. With this required buffer, the number of housing units identified in the Housing Element is 307.
To meet the objectives of the RHNA and provide sufficient capacity for housing development, the Housing Element identifies sites for residential development. The Housing Element update identifies some sites for land use changes either to be consistent with the existing Land Use Element or to permit or increase residential uses on the sites. However, neither the Housing Element nor the City itself develops housing. Moreover, as described in further detail in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, below, the Housing Element update, in and of itself, does not itself implement land use changes, but puts forth goals and policies that support housing efforts. As described in the Housing Element update, the City’s RHNA can be accommodated in the following categories:
▪ Vacant or underutilized sites, where new residential units can be developed under current General Plan regulations;
▪ Sites to be rezoned to permit residential uses or permit them at a high density ▪ Planned or pending projects where no rezoning is required; and ▪ Current accessory dwelling units, also known as “granny flats” Figure 3 shows the locations of the vacant and underutilized sites identified in sites inventory in the Housing Element update. All sites in the housing sites inventory are within the City’s limits.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Project Context
Addendum 13
Figure 3 Housing Element Sites Inventory Locations – Vacant and Underutilized (Nonvacant) Sites Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
14 2.1.1.5 Zoning and General Plan Amendments
The project would involve an amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance to rezone existing land use designations to Mixed-Use, Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential. Some existing sites are designated as land uses other than a residential land use category and would be rezoned to mixed-use or residential land use categories. Select sites would be upzoned from existing residential land use categories to more dense residential land use categories. Most of these sites are located in the central areas of the City to reflect the intensity of existing nearby higher density parcels. Future development of those sites would require separate CEQA review and compliance with local development standards.
Due to the proposed zoning modifications on particular Draft Housing Element vacant and underutilized sites, a General Plan Amendment would be required to change the land use designations on those sites to be consistent with the zoning.
2.1.2 Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element
The Safety element is one of the eight General Plan elements the state mandates in Government Code Section 65302. The project includes revisions to the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element which identifies forces of nature and events resulting from human action that have the potential to cause harm to life and property in the City. The goal of a Safety Element is to reduce the potential short and long-term risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from fires, floods, droughts, earthquakes, landslides, climate change, and other hazards.
Identifying the source of such threats allows decision-makers to take preemptory action to minimize the damage, particularly as it relates to new development. The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element also addresses noise, fire and police protection, hazardous materials, solid waste, and public utility systems. A climate change vulnerability assessment identifying potential impacts from climate change on vulnerable populations and natural and built assets in St. Helena was also conducted for the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update.
California law requires specific changes to a safety element when the municipality undergoes an update to the Housing Element. The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update includes revisions to be consistent with California law through the following actions:
▪ Identify and propose policies for residential developments in any hazard area identified in the safety element that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. ▪ Update information relating to flood and fire hazards and city assets at risk due to climate change vulnerability.
▪ Propose and strengthen policies related to risk reduction, emergency preparedness and evacuation, and community and facility resilience infrastructure and strategies. ▪ Propose additional policies to address climate change hazards, including extreme heat days, extended drought, increased precipitation, and worsening air quality such as investing in backup power sources, funding for weatherization of homes, and providing cooling centers.
2.1.2.1 Changes in State Law
The following represent bills passed by the California State Legislature and approved by the Governor that require substantive changes to a Safety Element when a municipality undergoes an update. The Safety and Community Services Element update has incorporated and addressed all pertinent safety element law changes.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Project Context
Addendum 15
▪ Residential Emergency Evacuation Routes: SB 99 (2019) ▪ Evacuation Routes: AB 747 (2019)
▪ General Plans: SB 1035 (2018)
▪ Climate Change Adaptation: SB 379 (2015)
▪ Integration of Local Hazard mitigation Plan: AB 2140 (2006) ▪ Seismic and Geologic Hazards: SB 926 (2004)
▪ Flood Mapping: AB 162 (2007)
2.1.3 2040 General Plan EIR
The 2040 General Plan update EIR addressed the potential environmental effects (direct and indirect) of the planned buildout of St. Helena through the year 2040 and concluded that implementation of the General Plan would result in levels of environmental impacts as detailed in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of Areas of Potential Impact under the 2040 General Plan Update EIR Issue Area Highest Level of Impact Mitigation Proposed in the General Plan EIR Aesthetics Less than significant None
Agricultural Resources Significant and Unavoidable None Air Quality Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-6
Biological Resources Less than significant None
Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural
Resources
Less than significant None
Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate
Change
Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measure GHG-1
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Less than significant None Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than significant None Hydrology and Water Quality Less than significant HYDRO-1 Land Use, Population, and Housing Less than significant None Noise Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measure NO-1 Public Services and Recreation Less than significant None Transportation and Traffic Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measures TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR-4, TR-5, and TR-6
Utilities and Service Systems Less than significant None The General Plan has an approximate year 2040 horizon, but actual buildout of all planned land uses may occur earlier or later, as long-range demographic and economic trends are difficult to accurately predict. The designation within the proposed General Plan of a site for a certain use does not necessarily mean that the site will be developed or redeveloped with that use during the planning period, as most development will depend on property owner initiative and market conditions.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
16 This page intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
Addendum 17
Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section
15164
Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be completed when changes are proposed to a project that has a previously certified EIR. When considering the need for additional environmental review, the fundamental determination a lead agency must make is whether the previously certified EIR retains some informational value or whether changes in the project or circumstances have rendered it wholly irrelevant. If the previously certified EIR has continuing informational value, the lead agency then must determine whether the proposed changes in the Project requires additional environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 provides that a lead agency will prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a) states that no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR may be prepared for a project with a certified EIR unless the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.
Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.
Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The analysis pursuant to Section 15162 demonstrates whether the lead agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the existing certified EIR, that an addendum to the existing EIR would be appropriate, and no new environmental document, such as a new EIR, would be required.
The addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
18 final EIR, and the decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to deciding on the project.
The City of St. Helena prepared this Addendum, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, to evaluate whether the project’s environmental impacts are covered by and within the scope of the General Plan Final EIR). The following Addendum details any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and/or "new information of substantial importance" that may cause one or more significant effects to environmental resources.
The responses herein substantiate and support the City of St. Helena’s determination that the potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element update and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update policies and programs are within the scope of the General Plan EIR, do not require subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and, in conjunction with the EIR, preparation of an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 is appropriate.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Environmental Effects & Determination
Addendum 19
Environmental Effects & Determination
4.1 Environmental Areas Determined to Have New or
Substantially More Severe Significant Effects
Compared to Those Identified in the Previous EIR
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in Project, change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.
■ None
□ Aesthetics □ Agricultural Resources □ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
□ Energy, Greenhouse
Gases, and Climate
Change
□ Geology, Soils, and
Seismicity
□ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use, Population, and
Housing
□ Noise □ Public Services and
Recreation
□ Transportation and Traffic □ Utilities and Service Systems
4.2 Determination
Based on this analysis, the 2040 General Plan EIR has continuing informational value and:
□ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT or SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Addendum Methodology
Addendum 21
Addendum Methodology
5.1 2040 General Plan Consistency
To promote a uniform and compatible vision for the development of the community, California law requires the General Plan be internally consistent in its goals and policies. The Housing Element and the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element are components of the General Plan, and thus, the Housing Element update and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update must be consistent with the vision of the General Plan and supported by goals and policies of the other General Plan elements. General Plan elements and policies that affect housing are summarized below:
The Land Use and Growth Management Element directs the location, amount, and type of residential development in St. Helena. It presents the desirable pattern for the ultimate development of the city and reflects the community’s evolution and changing demographics over the General Plan horizon. The Land Use Plan details the location and the density of development allowed throughout the city.
The Community Design Element guides the form, character, and appearance of the community to preserve the city’s history and character in future commercial, industrial, and residential development.
The Circulation Element defines a safe, efficient, and adequate circulation system in St. Helena that responds to all circulation needs. Circulation means the actual physical circulation system consisting of freeways, streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks, and trails, as well as modes of transportation, including cars, buses, trucks, trains, bicycles, ridesharing, and walking.
The Open Space and Conservation Element and Parks and Recreation Element establish goals and polices to protect sensitive resources from development impacts; maintain and improve appropriate access to open space; and ensure park and recreation opportunities are sufficient to meet the needs of future residents.
The Economic Sustainability Element establishes goals and policies to guide city efforts to maintain an economically viable community, including providing a range of housing and employment opportunities that meet the needs of residents and workers alike, that attract families and businesses to create demand for planned land uses, and that establish and fund public service levels to preserve St. Helena’s quality of life.
The Climate Change Element directs the City’s response to and plans for climate change by addressing energy and water conservation, renewable energy production, transportation, sustainable business development, and reduction of climate change impacts in the city.
5.2 Accommodation of the RHNA
The City’s RHNA for the current planning period is 256 units, which includes 162 very low and lowincome housing units, 26 moderate income housing units, and 68 above moderate housing units.
The City must demonstrate the availability of sites with appropriate zoning and development standards that can facilitate and encourage the development of such units. As shown in Table 3, the City anticipates the development of 72 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) during the eight-year planning period and 93 units would be accommodated from planned and approved (pipeline) Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
22 projects, which can count towards the RHNA. A total of 307 units were identified on vacant and nonvacant sites under the existing General Plan land uses, as well as on sites requiring rezoning under Program H-A.
Although the housing sites inventory has been identified for future planning purposes as part of the Housing Element update, the adoption of the Housing Element itself does not change the current zoning or General Plan designations of the properties. California Government Code Section 65583 (c)(1)(A) states that cities have up to three years from the start of the Housing Element planning period to rezone sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards.
Therefore, the City’s rezoning program, which is identified as Program H-A of the Housing Element update, would be a separate project and evaluated in accordance with CEQA at the time of its review. Prior to the approval of any changes in land use, the City would evaluate the potential environmental impacts from the rezoning or change in land use.
Table 3 Housing Unit Yield per Site Category
Site Category/Approach Very Low/Low Moderate Above Moderate Total RHNA plus buffer 192 31 79 302
Vacant or underutilized parcels 203 69 35 307
Planned or Pending Projects, no rezone 4 1 88 93
Accessory Dwelling Units 0 0 72 72
Total 207 70 195 472
RHNA Surplus (15) (39) (116) (171)
As shown in Table 3, existing vacant or underutilized residentially zoned properties, planned, and pending projects that require no zone change, and accessory dwelling units would yield four very low and low income housing units under current conditions. Therefore, the City of St. Helena needs to account for the additional 188 very low and low income housing units through a combination of the remaining approaches. The 188 very low and low income housing units fall within the projected horizon year buildout and housing unit assumptions addressed in the General Plan and General Plan EIR.
5.3 Consistency with Horizon Year 2040 Projections
The General Plan EIR reports that in 2018 there were 2,735 existing housing units in St. Helena and predicts that by horizon year 2040, St. Helena will have 3,067 units (Chapter 2, Project Description), assuming an addition of 332 new housing units citywide between 2018 and horizon year 2040. As discussed above, the City of St. Helena’s RHNA for the current planning period is 256 units. In addition, the Housing Element includes a required buffer which plans for a total of approximately 302 units during the planning period. Including the pending and approved projects, ADU trends, and vacant and nonvacant sites, the Site Inventory would accommodate approximately 472 units as shown in Table 3 which would exceed the 332 units by an additional 140 units. Therefore, additional environmental analysis would be required prior to the implementation of the rezoning program identified as Program H-A in the Housing Element.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Addendum Methodology
Addendum 23
5.4 Preliminary Environmental Considerations
The Housing Element update, in and of itself, does not propose specific development projects, but rather puts forth goals, policies, and programs that support housing efforts in St. Helena. Each future housing development project and housing program adopted in the Housing Element would be subject to separate review to determine potential impacts on the environment related to each project as potential impacts are location-specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until a project site and development proposal are identified. When a specific development proposal is considered for approval, that project would be subject to adopted development guidelines and standards and be required to incorporate applicable mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the 2040 General Plan EIR certified in 2019 (in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(3)). If a subsequent activity (in this case a specific development proposal) would have effects not identified in the program EIR (the 2040 General Plan EIR and this Addendum), the lead agency must prepare additional CEQA documentation.
Similarly, the goals, policies and programs in the updated Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element, in and of themselves, do not propose specific projects that result in a physical change to the environment. Should a project associated with implementation of the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element have the potential to result in a physical change in the environment, it would be subject to separate review under CEQA.
This Addendum Evaluation, therefore, includes the analysis of the changes and potential impacts related to the adoption of Housing Element and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates.
No physical development or changes in land use are addressed or evaluated. The City would analyze any future development or changes in land use separate from the adoption of the Housing Element.
This Addendum Evaluation is intended to demonstrate the project’s consistency with the existing St.
Helena 2040 General Plan update Final EIR to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. In particular, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, this Addendum Evaluation assesses whether the updated Housing Element and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element, as a policy and programs document, includes impacts not addressed or analyzed as significant effects in the St.
Helena 2040 General Plan update Final EIR.
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
24 This page intentionally left blank.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Addendum Evaluation
Aesthetics
Addendum 25
Addendum Evaluation
6.1 Aesthetics
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
a publicly accessible vantage point).
If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
26 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
d. Create a new source of substantial
light or glare that would adversely
affect daytime or nighttime views in
the area?
Less Than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.
Addendum Evaluation
Aesthetics
Addendum 27
2040 General Plan EIR Aesthetics Findings
The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to aesthetic resources would be less than significant for scenic vistas, scenic highways, visual quality, and light and glare (Section 3.1, Aesthetics). It further stated that individual development projects would be subject to projectspecific development and planning review, including adherence to goals and policies in the Land Use and Growth Management Element and Community Design Element related to urban design and visual quality. As such, all projects proposed under General Plan implementation would be required to conform to zoning, design standards, and other regulations concerning aesthetic resources such as those that address architectural design, lighting, landscaping, building setbacks, and visual compatibility.
Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th
cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Government Code Section 65583 (c)(1)(A) states that cities have up to three years from the time a Housing Element is adopted to rezone sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards. The City would evaluate any proposed land use changes for potential environmental impacts prior to approval of the proposed land use change. Furthermore, future development proposals could be subject to further environmental analysis, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) and as required by state law, to evaluate potential impacts specific to that proposal.
Because it is a policy document, the Housing Element update would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual character, and would not create new sources of substantial light or glare which adversely affects views. The sites are located on vacant as well as non-vacant properties such as those with existing buildings or vineyards. However similar to the analysis within the 2040 General Plan EIR, any individual development projects consistent with the Housing Element would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including adherence to goals and policies in the Land Use and Growth Management Element and Community Design Element related to urban design and visual quality. As such, all projects proposed under the Housing Element implementation would be required to conform to zoning, design standards, and other regulations concerning aesthetic resources such as those that address architectural design, lighting, landscaping, building setbacks, and visual compatibility.
The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. None of the implementation items would cause impacts to scenic vistas or resources or directly develop new structures which would impact views and create substantial glare. Any potential updates to structures to mitigate potential risks to wildfire or other climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including adherence to goals and policies in the Land Use and Growth Management Element and Community Design Element related to urban Agenda Item #11.1.
City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
28 design and visual quality. Therefore the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR and no additional environmental assessment of aesthetics is required.
Agenda Item #11.1.
Addendum Evaluation
Agricultural Resources
Addendum 29
6.2 Agricultural Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Significant and
Unavoidable
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.